ITT missing the forest for the trees and focusing on - The incorrect definition of "fascist". The article is just using the word as a label for "people who don

ITT missing the forest for the trees and focusing on - The incorrect definition of "fascist". The article is just using the word as a label for "people who don't let others do things that don't hurt anyone". Yeah it should've used another label like "authoritarian" or "wall", but the ultimate message is the same. - Over-analyzing the rules: "you should let people do what they want, unless they're hurting other people" but what if "hurt" is something stupid like "going outside hurts me because you're ugly"? This is the first half of the ultimate message, the article agrees that people assign stupid meanings to "hurt" and that is the source of many disagreements. - The article suggesting you try logic and morals to persuade someone who isn't following logic and morals. The second half of the ultimate message is that sometimes you think someone isn't acting logically or morally (ex: the person trying to stop you from eating tictacs because they're on a power-trip) when they are (ex: said person is really tying to stop you because they believe tic-tacs are sentient, which if true, would justify intervention). And yes, some people are on power-trips or otherwise acting in bad faith. But most people simultaneously believe they use logic and morals, and most other people don't; because people don't act as rationally and morally as they think, and (the article's message) they mis-judge others as bad-intentioned when they're good-intentioned but have bad assumptions.