Do you think a lot of people who identify as Liberals fit this description?

@Heartlander Nonsense!
Where on earth did you get that idea?

@hartfire
Leftists are fascists. They don't respect the rights and opinions of others. They are closed-minded and brutally intolerant.

California makes it illegal for doctors to disagree with politicians (nypost.com)

California makes it illegal for doctors to disagree with politicians
By
Dr. Joel Zinberg
October 10, 2022 7:39pm

Conformity of thought is now required whether it is online, on college campuses, or, if you are in California, in a physician-patient relationship.
PayPal recently introduced a $2,500 fine for anyone involved in “the sending, posting, or publication of any messages, content, or materials” that — in “PayPal’s sole discretion” — “promote misinformation.”
After a firestorm of criticism, PayPal withdrew the policy, claiming the whole thing was a misunderstanding and was not official policy — hardly a convincing explanation from a site with a history of banning those it considers politically incorrect.

But California physicians have had no such relief.
Gov. Gavin Newsom recently signed California Assembly Bill 2098, making it the first state to attempt to censor what physicians can say about COVID-19 to their patients. This is a dangerous, and likely unconstitutional, effort that other states must resist.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law about what doctors can say to patients about COVID-19.

The statute instructs that “It shall constitute unprofessional conduct for a physician and surgeon to disseminate misinformation or disinformation related to COVID-19, including false or misleading information regarding the nature and risks of the virus, its prevention and treatment; and the development, safety, and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines.”

California law requires the Medical Board of California to take action — up to and including license revocation — against any licensed physician charged with unprofessional conduct. But under the First Amendment, content-based speech regulation by government entities is presumptively unconstitutional and may be justified only if the government proves that it is narrowly tailored to serve compelling state interests.

With the new California law, doctors are limited in what they can say to patients.
A 2018 Supreme Court case, National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, held that professional speech — speech by licensed practitioners based on their expert knowledge and judgment — is protected by the First Amendment.
The court, though, did suggest that regulations of professional conduct that incidentally burden speech might be allowed. Speech that is part of the practice of medicine has historically been subject to reasonable licensing and regulation by states.

@marke I think you're confusing Liberalism and the role of governments with the ideology of Fascism.

The primary goal of Liberalism is to allow people to think, believe, speak and live as they wish so long as it causes no harm to others.

Consider what happens on an ocean going sloop. The captain is at the tiller keeping an eye on the direction, wind and currents. If the boat needs to tack into the wind, she/he has to shout directions at the crew to haul in certain ropes and simultaneously let loose others. If it's not done with perfect obedience, timing and teamwork the boat can capsize and crew can get knocked out or killed by the swing of the boom.
Similar principles apply in emergencies when teamwork is needed to put out a wildfire or rescue people from disasters.
We don't call a leader a Fascist when he or she steps up to coordinate the efforts of everyone in such situations. We know that the leader will step back into a training role or other administrative and preparatory work as soon as the emergency passes.
The role of government in warfare, foreign relationships, trade, legislation, social welfare, infrastructure and law is similar: to show leadership in adapting to new situations as they arise through legislation, budgeting and so on.
Covid was an emergency because it threatened to overrun the hospital and other services (as it did in India, Italy and many other countries) leading to an even greater loss of life and permanent disabilities due to long covid. The role of government was to step in with policies to limit the spread of covid until the majority of the population was vaccinated, allowing time for scientists to develop vaccines and medicines and hospitals to prepare larger quarantine areas. Also to deal with the increased needs for ambulances, burials, and the inevitable effects on education, transport, workplaces, etc.
Every state had slightly different policies, and over the first two years we learned from experience which policies worked and the best timing for different phases. To some extent, due to the changes in strains of the virus, it is still a situation that relies on the best informed guesses of the experts. Hence, although our governments might succeed in significantly reducing the scale of harm during an emergency, it will never be possible to get it perfectly right.
This is not Fascism. Fascism is Mugabe, Pol Pot, the Burmese Junta, Tito, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Hitler and Mussolini - none of these megalomaniacs ever willingly step down.

If California often has a liberal or Democrat government, it was elected. Sometimes it has had a Republican government. It swings. That's the opposite of Fascism or dictatorship which, once elected, refuses to accept defeat and relinquish its power if the vote swings against it.

You might not agree with the laws around covid and what doctors must do, and that is your absolute right.
You are free to move to another state if you find it too onerous where you live.

But to slam people with the title of fascist simply because they choose a tight rein during a pandemic is not fair.

Eventually the whole world will be living with the constant risk of covid. It will never go away. Once the health infrastructure is in place everyone will be free to make their own choices with regard to vaccines and masks. But there will probably be new social etiquette: maintaining a polite 6' space between us in lines/queues, better hand hygiene, staying home when ill and so on. We will be creating better ventilation in building design and probably relying far more on open windows as much as possible. We will probably be socialising much more outdoors.

I have just as much to say on other issues, but that's enough for now.
I only ask that you try to talk to liberals; ask them what they really think. And please don't confuse the occasional angry ranters with the majority of liberals.

@hartfire
Democrats used covid as an excuse to crack down on Americans with a heavy hand, denying doctors the right to inform patients of the facts and denying Americans the right to exercise their religious beliefs, among other mistakes. The democrats were wrong. Fauci is now denying he had anything to do with school closures. Vaccine mandates have now been responsible for thousands of unnecessary deaths and pharmaceutical companies are now admitting they never tested their vaccines for deadly side effects, and so forth.

@marke I wasn't in the USA, so don't know exactly what happened in which states. I received only scanty news on the major statistics. But I understood it was Trump and the Republicans who were at the helm when Covid broke loose, and for the duration of the time until shortly after the vaccines were produced.
I don't know where you source your news but the science showed that around the world only one in 60,000 had a negative or deadly reaction to any of the vaccines. The average death toll for those who caught covid was 1 in 100, and up to 6 in a hundred in some countries.
In essence it was and still is a bit like choosing gambling or insurance. The statistics work on a grand scale, and governments are responsible for trying to save the largest number of people they can. But individual's immune systems vary enormously and we have, as yet, no way to genetically or chemically test who will respond in what way.
I agree that on one level the right to choose is important - and some would rather die for that right if their choice turns out to be not right for their own body.
But on a government scale, trying to save the largest number possible is the only ethical choice, especially when it comes to doctors, paramedics and anyone working at close quarters with those who are highly vulnerable.
I also understand that most Americans were appalled by the "Fascist" emergency rules imposed in Australia - but over 90% of Australians were overwhelmingly grateful for it.
What this means is that how we respond to such situations is often determined by our cultural bias and programming - and actually has very little to so with our individual beliefs. We imagine we think for ourselves, but we are all imprinted from birth and throughout childhood. Very few of us completely revise or change the programming of our youth.

@Heartlander That would make them Nazi Socialists, for sure.

@hartfire The early covid mitigation measures were largely ineffective and the risky deadly side effects of the covid vaccine are becoming more apparent as time goes on.