We are at the bottom of that slope and are being buried under all of the shit that's continuing to slide down it.

From slavery to the Chinese exclusion act to Jim Crow to the Japanese internment camps to the patriot act. It's hard to make the case we were anything but.

What has changed recently is technology collapsing the world into a single blob of information, and that aspect gets worse every year.

Despite the headline on this article you still have way more freedom and specifically freedom of speech in the US than the rest of us.

The law works differently at the border, especially for non-citizens. Tourists don't have any legal right to get in. You may argue that the guards should be kinder and I would agree.

The historical examples you mention involve racism and slavery that were terrible but also the global standard at the time.

The Patriot Act is scary, but it doesn't seem much better elsewhere in the Anglosphere or in Europe. Say something impolitic loud enough and you'll get in trouble anywhere.

Here's hoping individual freedoms win in the end.

> you still have way more freedom and specifically freedom of speech in the US than the rest of us

Depends on who "you" are.

There some some who are allowed to openly make tangible, if thinly veiled death threats to others without repercussions. Others can have their lives ruined over trivial things.

The "you"s who are not granted as much freedom of speech are aware of it and only express themselves among trusted people.

There is now an absolute fountain of criticism of the current administration, the USA itself, and the entire West coming from every demographic in the USA. This isn't a new thing or restricted to Trump. I don't see any mass arrests, chilling of media, or official propaganda making the rounds.

You are not looking. Law firms are targeted and silenced. Media is subservient. People absolutely do watch what they say for a large number of reasons.

The type of speech being policed is different, but it's absolutely happening.

You're right and I don't like it one bit, but there was also a long list of true things that we weren't allowed to say aloud under the previous lot.

Great, glad we agree. I didn't like the precious lot one bit either. Glad they're gone.

Interestingly, as an American, literally the only time I've had my luggage poked through by an armed guard was in a social democracy in Europe.

There's some inspection in practically every transport hub when I travel. While I traveled internationally the most strict was in Germany. I really don't mind a lot - there are good reasons to be careful - but they had guards in full military gear and with automatic weapons (usually it's handguns and plain uniforms) which looked pretty intimidating, and that was the only time I had to actually turn on my laptop to show it's a working laptop and not some kind of trick. Maybe showing how strict and tough they are was the point. The worst inspectors I had were in London. They were exceedingly slow and had very unpleasant manners. Maybe just my luck. Never had any real problems though - worst thing they got a look on my underpants and power connectors, and sent me on my way.

Yeah, of course most places inspect luggage, but here in the US luggage inspection is done mostly by staff who are not police/military.

There are many more armed services in the US than police/military. Dept. of Education has a SWAT team. Amtrak has armed force. US Park service has one. Really, there are so many of them.

Those are all examples of police agencies with police powers. This is in contrast to TSA officers screening your luggage, who have no police powers and are not police.

To add another example to your list -- the TSA also has their own police (e.g. Federal Air Marshal Service), but they don't work the line screening your baggage.

They are not police either. They are just armed men at government service. TSA inspectors in particular are not armed, but that's immaterial - there are other armed government workers around that could be used if needed. Police is only a tiny part of government's armed forces. It is most visible because everybody seen the police drive around, but most people never saw DeptEd SWAT team, but that doesn't change the fact a lot of those exist and are around, just a bit out of sight.

No, federal police are police. “Police” is a word that refers to a particular set of political powers.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_in_the_Unite...

Those are police. They can arrest you, unlike the TSA.

Conversely, as an American, the only time I've had my luggage poked through was coming back into the USA. I don't remember if they were armed though.

The only time that you’ve known of! Fly with locked luggage and see how often that lock stays intact.

TSA removes locks with bolt cutters, they don't shoot them off.

… well, yes, but they are armed guards and they are searching your luggage. I feel that’s more relevant than the exact method of lock removal.

No, the TSA security officers who are inspecting passengers and their luggage do not have arrest powers and are not armed.

If you are doing something illegal, they call the police, and the police arrest you.

Does your need to be technically correct outweigh your need to understand an argument?

Facts matter and yours are wrong.

The adjective "armed" in my topmost comment wasn't a technicality, it was the entire point of the anecdote. Do you really think I was saying that the TSA never searches luggage? Obviously the TSA searches a lot of luggage, the thing they don't do is carry guns while doing so.

Right, they have to call the guy with a gun over. Is the problem the luggage search, as in, the invasion of privacy? The explicit threat of force in the absence of immediate compliance? The assumption of guilt for the general populace? The ever-present security state continually looking to oppress?

Or is it “huh europe is weird they give their TSA agents guns instead of having the transport security and also airport police?”

It's just an anecdote. I wasn't trying to draw any philosophical conclusions from it.

To be fair, you are on HackerNews.

> It's a slippery slope toward fascism.

Not sure I would ever consider the GDR to have been "fascist".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Germany

Authoritarianism is the more appropriate term I think.

East Germany was not a fascist state, it was an explicitly anti-fascist state.

Horribly authoritarian, with wanton disregard for human rights, yes, but not "fascist".

Yeah, they were a democracy:) German Democratic Republic (GDR). Same with NK: Democratic People's Republic of Korea

They were not a democracy despite what they had in the name. They were also not fascist, which has nothing to do with what was in their name. They were actually not fascist, in the sense that they didn't follow the ideology called "fascism".

Fascism is a specific ideology invented in Italy in the early 20th century; it does not just mean any authoritarian dictatorship.

Yes, they were not fascist as an ideology. But I was pointing out the country was a democracy in name only which means whatever one calls themselves or claims to be are not necesarily rooted in reality.

You're correct about that, which is why my claim that they were not fascist has nothing to do with what was in their name or whether or not they claimed to be anything. It is based on the fact that in actual reality they did not follow the ideology of fascism.

You think you're being clever here. East Germany was essentially the USSR's particular brand of Authoritarianism. No one is making the claim that they were a democracy. Believe it or not, there is a difference between Fascism and Authoritarian Communism.

It's yet more evidence almost 0% of the population actually understands what "fascism" really is...

Right. Fascism and Soviet Bloc-style communism are both "bad" in the sense that they have tended to produce authoritarian dictatorships that massively increase human misery. But other than that, they are not at all the same ideology.

The problem is with people labeling anything they dislike as "fascist. Surely we can admit it dilutes the actual meaning of the word by using it to refer to things that are, in-fact, not fascist?

Strictly speaking, yes. It was a totalitarian communist state, though people often use "fascist" to mean any totalitarian state, even if fascism is only one of many ways a totalitarian state can be implemented.

> It was a totalitarian communist state, though people often use "fascist" to mean any totalitarian state

Indeed, but those people are wrong. It would be like calling Jerry Falwell an Islamist extremist. Maybe they are bad for vaguely similar reasons but it is still inaccurate.

Quibbling about the flavors about authoritarianism is like quibbling about the flavors of shit. "No no, this is pig shit not chicken shit, it's completely different in a way that is totally irrelevant to the person being forced to eat it."

No, words mean things and if you use them randomly people will not take you seriously.

If you start telling me about how Syria has a serious problem with fundamentalist Baptists I am just going to assume you have no idea what you're talking about.

The meaning of words shifts over time. Fascism and authoritarianism are colloquially conflated so often that if you make a stink about somebody calling the GDR fascist, people are going to assume you are either an apologist for the communist flavor of authoritarianism, or an autistic pedant.

Really, you're just pissing into the wind.

Alright, then what do you think I should call what used to be called “fascism” ? Since it is really quite a different thing from Soviet Block-style communism (even if both are bad!) and so could use a different word to describe it.

Authoritarianism seems to be the correct word.

I agree that the term fascist is wildly over-used, to the point where actual fascist behaviours are getting normalised.

Authoritarian encompasses both Soviet Bloc-style communism as well as what I used to think was called fascism. However the other poster is claiming fascism now means both. So I need another word to describe the specific thing that I used to think was called fascism.

Yeah, I'm with your original definition. I think it's important to distinguish between left wing and right wing authoritarianism as they tend to be quite different.

Horseshoe politics. Orwell was on to that notion way back when.

If border officers being armed or inspecting luggage is a definition of fascism to you, you'd struggle hard to find a lot of non-fascist countries. I have my luggage inspected each time I travel, and a lot of security personnel in airports are armed - are all airports already fascist?

It was a lot more invasive than that in those days. The border agents would rifle through our groceries and occasionally things like dried meats or booze would magically go missing. Other times they would be officially confiscated, or customs levied.

Armed guards in 1980's East Germany open your luggage and poke through it by hand.

TSA employees in 2000's USA scan your luggage and poke through it with technology. For any reason or no reason, they can open it up and poke through it by hand, or ask for assistance from nearby policemen with guns.

Is there any moral difference? If so, what is it?

(Also, nitpick: The East Germans were Communists, not fascists.)

Yes, the moral difference is in the motivation and consequences.

We take into account motivation pretty often to evaluate morality not sure why you can't apply it here

TSA's purpose is prevent harm to other passengers (effectiveness is debatable but not the point), the east German border guards were there to keep control on what information the population could access and share

They are not the same thing even if the means look the same

So basically, "when we do it it's good, when they do it it's bad"? I didn't think I'd see someone seriously practice such morality on this website.

Most morally mature people practice that sort of reasoning. They take into account intentions, likely consequences, the state of knowledge of those involved, and other complicating factors before coming to a conclusion.

I think we have exactly opposite definitions of "moral maturity".

You may be right, anal_reactor.

Is it moral for an ambulance to cut through traffic, run red lights and break speed limits? Is the same moral for drunk teenagers?

There's no action (and by that I do mean action, not something abstract that involves multiple actions and choices) that won't be moral some times and immoral others. Intent is always to be accounted for. I'd be happy to have counterexamples if you have any in mind

Also pretty weird to see you infuse a sense of moral superiority to this website of all places

>Armed guards poked though his luggage. It's a slippery slope toward fascism.

Is it? Lack of rights at the border isn't "fascism", it's the norm. I don't think any country gives you 4th amendment (or similar) rights at the border, even liberal democracies.

And nearly all "rights" are rights of citizens, not visitors...

This is false in every country I know of with even a rudimentary adherence to the rule of law, including the US.

Is the implication here that lawfully granted visas and green card holders don't have rights in the US?

So foreigners have no rights in the US?? You clearly do not understand the law, at all.

You clearly do not understand how to read, at all.

I went to Canada 10 years ago. When they asked why, I told them I was mailing a birthday gift to a Canadian friend and I wanted to be the one who had to pay any duties or taxes. They had me pull over and go inside. Where they asked the password for my phone and then took it. A couple hours later they came back and gave me my phone, charged me ~$100 and let me go through. When I got to my car I found that they had opened the package I was mailing and a number of things had been moved around, from which I concluded they had also searched my car.

i drove to Surrey to a UPS Store, resealed and shipped the package and returned to the border. The US Immigration officer asked why I was only in Canada for 30 minutes, I explained, he laughed and sent me on my way.

Moral of the story is that every country can and will search your stuff and detain you and often turn you back for no meaningful reason.

East Germany was under communist control after the fascist regime lost the war... It's accurate to describe as "authoritarian", but not "fascist."

For many, everything bad is "fascism", regardless of any similarity to the Mussolini rule of Italy 1922-1943.

Of course it lacked the mark on the anticommunism checkbox, but control of society and control of economy were checked. That's 50% of the fascist playbook.

There was probably some nationalism too. Stalin buried internatonalism quickly. They would inevitably bow to the Russian overlords. No shame about it. We were bowing to the USA in the West and we still are.

Anyway, was communism only a facade by the 70s and the 80s? In that case it was a fully fascist country. All of the East.

I'd like to hear from somebody who lived in those countries at that time.

In fact, East Germany was so anti-fascist they erected the “Anti-Fascist Barrier” around East Berlin.

I think East Germany was the opposite of fascism. At least compared to West Germany.

This is what we get when the American right wing conflates the two terms on TV for years and years. Don't like the definition of a word? just change it.

The Stasi were communist. Maybe you want to say “authoritarian”?