Nearly all politicians act like this when they're in power. The general public is easily mislead.

HN notices it when it's a tech issue, but it happens in economics, medicine, basically everywhere. They have zero incentives to accept responsibility.

Nearly all politicians prosecute reporters? No, I'm pretty sure that is just the fascists.

> pretty sure that is just the fascists.

i’m not from the US, but is it common in the US to use these kinds of accusations? seems ultra far fetched.

From the extremists, yes, it is common. The "other" side's elected officials are nearly always labelled "fascists". However, the majority of the electorate is smart enough to recognize that it's just a failed appeal to emotion, and nothing more. (except maybe exhausting)

Yes. Most online discourse about politics will eventually have someone claim fascism or make a Hilter reference.

If you aren't among one of the two sides it can be humorous to watch at times.

and there's the 3rd response: the enlightened centrist.

"The creator of Godwin’s Law explains why some Nazi comparisons don’t break his famous Internet rule"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2017/08...

"It’s Time to Call Nazis ‘Nazis’"

https://www.thedailybeast.com/its-time-to-call-nazis-nazis

Chap behind Godwin's law suspends his own rule for Charlottesville fascists: 'By all means, compare them to Nazis'

https://www.theregister.com/2017/08/14/godwins_law_creator_r...

And there's the law itself. Mike Godwin takes pains to clarify that it's not about valid or invalid comparison, or who's "winning" or "losing" the discussion, as it is an observation that productive discussion within the thread is over.

Specifically:

  So - *WHAT DOES IT MEAN*? 

   Fine, fine - it means that somebody's eventually going to say
  something about the Nazis in any thread that lasts very long.  When it
  happens, the thread is going to start either degenerating into a long
  flamewar over Nazi Germany or about Godwin's Law.  Either way, the thread
  is effectively over, and you can safely killfile the thread and move on.

...

  2.  What happens if we're actually talking about Nazis?
 
   Then you've already invoked Godwin's Law, and the chances are that
  your thread isn't going to last all that much longer as a sane discussion.
  Them's the breaks.
  
  3.  What about arguing with Neo-Nazis?

   Arguing with Neo-Nazis is probably the quickest path to getting
  Nazi invocations, because, well, they're actually accurate.  Still, trying
  to invoke Godwin's Law near a Neo-Nazi isn't really a good idea because
  it's not terribly original and they'll probably get off on it anyway.
  Just ignore them and occasionally publish a FAQ detailing what actually
  happened during the Holocaust and such; arguing probably isn't going to
  help you.

http://wiki.killfile.org/projects/usenet/faqs/godwin/

This thread has reached the discussion-of-Godwin's-law stage, so there's that.

And remember that "it can't happen here" is also a fallacy.

Is prosecuting reporters not, like, definitionally fascist?

Right, you don't need any other supporting information and you don't have to bring political parties into it. If a politician is prosecuting a reporter for embarrassing the state - not for committing a crime - they are a fascist.

i don’t think either of you is correct. there are many tenets of fascism, and prosecuting (or straight up imprisoning) journalists is a common occurance in socialist and capitalist countries. by your definition a lot of capitalist and socialist countries around the world are fascist, which is false.

I don't think they meant to imply that all people who imprison reporters are definitionally fascist, but that fascists definitely imprison reporters as a matter of course. The claim was that accusing someone of imprisoning reporters of being fascist is "ultra far fetched". But if imprisoning reporters is something that fascists are wont to do, then it doesn't seem to me that questioning if these people are fascist is "ultra far fetched". You could also want to know if they were socialists if that's the thing you believe socialists do.

I used to recoil at these kinds of statements until I saw what the Trump administration was doing.

It's not an exaggeration. Stephen Miller, Steve Bannon, Richard Spencer, all these people in Trump's inner circle are self-described "alt-right," "white nationalist," or some other euphemism for ethno-fascist.

Racism and fascism in the US are very real, serious problems, and have become synonymous with the Republican party.

edit, here is a link or two:

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/05/stephen-miller-duke-...

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/26/783047584/leaked-emails-fuel-...

Just think how much trouble we would have saved if only we'd been able to call Mussolini a Fascist in the 30s.

Mussolini called himself a fascist, and certainly didn't mind when everyone else did as well.

Substitute whistleblower for reporter and yes, nearly all politicians will use the criminal justice system to silence their critics.

Was Obama a fascist? I have no desire to engage in whataboutism, they all show their true colors when they're in power and shown corrupt or incompetent.

>I have no desire to engage in whataboutism

Then don't.

I think Snowden should be pardoned and considered a national hero, but he unquestionably committed a very serious crime. There was no crime committed in the State of Missouri on this matter.

Because of HN no-politics type of policy, the only time HN can get riled up is when the politics involve tech. It's not that HN readers have no interest in these other topics. There's limitations on what the man will allow you to discuss about the other man. Hi dang!!!

I wonder if he's trying to "control the narrative" in the hopes that he (or the state) isn't sued for releasing private teachers' data to the public.

I think we're using Hanlon's Razor. All else equal, it's more likely he's merely ignorant than that he's trying to tear down the first amendment. Is there any evidence to the contrary?