The problem is such hyperbole is the only thing standing in the way of a system going that far. There are a great many normalized restrictions now which were ridiculed as commie gulag fodder not long ago, restrictions which not long ago would have been met with rebellion.
Billions of people have lived in "commie gulags". Most of them could still live their lives, and normalized any limitations they lived under. Stay within those "reasonable" restrictions, and you'd be OK; suggest breaking down those restrictions, and you'd be subject to the wrath of other citizens ridiculing your "hyperbole".
The "sane compromise" is standing by core principles. We learned to institute such principles as foundational law precisely because "sane compromises" and "mitigating circumstances" went very, very bad; if we deviate from them again, we will again learn - the very hard way - why those principles were enshrined in the first place. If the government decides you should be prohibited from doing X, a warrant must be approved by a judge, the restriction presented you in no uncertain terms, your accusers available for questioning, a court available for redress of grievances, and means for acquittal possible involving a jury of fellow citizens - not some secret list you can't even see to confirm whether your name is in fact on it.
I don't understand how inaccurately comparing living with a no-fly list to life in the USSR has anything to do with "standing by core principles". If anything it rather sounds like the opposite.
Stand by your principles. Don't spin the argument.
Core principles: evidence against me must be obtained under warrant, presented in court with my notification, subject to challenge, evaluated by a jury of common citizens, and the verdict subject to appeal. This is absolute front-and-center core principles of our government.
A secret list limiting travel by common means, with no more visibility than a bureaucrat's perfunctory "you're on the no-fly list, go away", with no way to confirm or challenge it, is absolutely a hallmark of life in the USSR.
It's not spinning the argument. It's the point of the argument.
A secret list limiting travel by common means, with no more visibility than a bureaucrat's perfunctory "you're on the no-fly list, go away", with no way to confirm or challenge it
Completely untrue, the ACLU has gotten several people off the no fly list, used FOIA requests to gain access to it, etc.
Billions of people have lived in "commie gulags". Most of them could still live their lives, and normalized any limitations they lived under. Stay within those "reasonable" restrictions, and you'd be OK; suggest breaking down those restrictions, and you'd be subject to the wrath of other citizens ridiculing your "hyperbole".
The "sane compromise" is standing by core principles. We learned to institute such principles as foundational law precisely because "sane compromises" and "mitigating circumstances" went very, very bad; if we deviate from them again, we will again learn - the very hard way - why those principles were enshrined in the first place. If the government decides you should be prohibited from doing X, a warrant must be approved by a judge, the restriction presented you in no uncertain terms, your accusers available for questioning, a court available for redress of grievances, and means for acquittal possible involving a jury of fellow citizens - not some secret list you can't even see to confirm whether your name is in fact on it.