Talk:Freedom Convoy

The term "fascist"

Can we stop using the term "fascist" for the liberals? Strictly speaking the term "fascist" refers to the Fascist Party and its allies in the early 20th century. To my knowledge no group claims to be fascist today. I would agree that the liberals are similar to the fascists of old; but this is a conclusion not a fact. I propose that all instances of the term fascist in this article be replaced by "liberal", "authoritarian" or "totalitarian", unless in reference to an accusation where the term "fascist" was actually used.

By their fruits ye shall know them.

Of course. But wouldn't it be more informative to describe the fruits? Totalitarian is a much more factual and descriptive term that is hard to deny. Fascist requires a comparative analysis that I think is justified. But I think it damages our credibility to throw out the term without making the analysis.

Is this really a false flag?

The evidence that this is a false flag appears incredibly weak and not particular to the US Freedom Convoy. The inclusion in this article looks suspiciously like an attempt to scare people away from a legitimate peaceful protest against an evil totalitarian regime.

The article states in the lead that the US Freedom Convoy is a "false flag" operation. This statement implies that the US Freedom Convoy is different from the freedom convoy in Canada and other countries mentioned immediately prior. However the the only source cited in the article is a blog accusing all "freedom convoys" in various "nations" of being false flag operations. Aside from this broad accusation, I am unaware of any reason to believe that the US Freedom convoy is a false flag operation. If this is the only evidence, it is inappropriate to state as fact that the US Freedom convoy in particular is a false flag operation.

Under the United States section, the article states that there were multiple "warnings" that the us convoy is a false flag operation. Again, the only source cited is a single blog post accusing all "freedom convoys" in various "nations" of being false flag operations (and accusing the US Freedom Convoy of being an instance of this). It is inappropriate to suggest based on this single accusation that the US Freedom convoy in particular is a false flag operation, implying that it is different from the others. Additionally the article directly quotes without quotation marks from the copyrighted blog post it uses a as source.

I have tried to fix this issue but my edit has been reversed. If you are going to reverse my edit, please explain why.

I have reapplied this edit slightly differently in two parts. If you reverse it again, please explain why. Honestly, given the how paltry and spurious the evidence is, I think it is generous to include the claim of a false flag protest in any form.

Due to the cyberwar, Big Tech collusion with totalitarian fascist regimes has forced the resistance movement underground.

Obviously. But does this mean that all visible protests are false flags? I am confused as to how this is relevant. -OP

You are the one who put "all" in there. Why ask me?

The accusation cited is against them all, not just the US freedom convoy. I still can't see any evidence that the freedom convoy in any country is a false flag. -OP

You apparently are an experienced wiki editor. Why do you refuse to sign your posts? 17:40, February 28, 2022 (EST)

Thanks for the complement, but I just started wiki editing. I don't know when and how signing posts is usually done or why post signing would be useful. -OP

suggest combining sections

Could the sections on Iran, Ireland, and India be combined into a single section named something like "international criticism"? There is no discussion of freedom convoys in these countries and it is confusing to include them in the list of countries where freedom convoys are ongoing.

discussion of Biden's title

Why do you insist on calling Biden the premier? There is no such title in the United States. The title is "president" and nowhere outside of this article is he ever called premier. Why on Earth would you revert this clearly correct edit? If you object to the title "president" and are aiming for a generic title you could use something like "potentate", "leader", "ruler" or another generic term.

Premier is a legal title in other countries and flat out incorrect of any position in the United States. I am changing it back to president.

Socialist premier sounds more respectful than socialist fuhrer, which is the same thing. Either way, that's what he is. RobS^{Let's Go Brandon!} 17:28, February 28, 2022 (EST)