4 ms·

> Your first list is way too broad and does not capture the particularities that makes fascism different from other kinds of dictatorship. Fair, but tbh, I'd c

> Your first list is way too broad and does not capture the particularities that makes fascism different from other kinds of dictatorship. Fair, but tbh, I'd categorize fascism mostly by the combination of Syndicalism and the nationalist approach to overthrowing capitalism. > The second list is obviously a ridiculous take Yes, because this author's points were ridiculous, cut up beyond recognition to fit the author's political agenda. SmolLM-135M would have done a more decent job summing up the original 14 points speech. And even some of the points in the original speech were ridiculous. Like: "Since even sex is a difficult game to play, the Ur-Fascist hero tends to play with weapons, doing so becomes an ersatz phallic exercise."

cauch 1y ago
> Fair, but tbh, I'd categorize fascism mostly by the combination of Syndicalism and the nationalist approach to overthrowing capitalism. Oh, so your two first points are 1. people don't like to work, 2. not adopting the radical ideology of self-declared chiefs of industry. (Don't take it seriously, it is just to show that everyone can do the same lame argumentation than you have done with everything, and that therefore it has no weight at all) > Yes, because this author's points were ridiculous Not sure who you are referring to as "author". Eco? The author of the OpenCulture article? Someone in HN comments? 404media? But it does not really matter, does it? Imagine someone says "all the dogs are purple". Then I say "what they said is ridiculous because the fact that people like Christmas is obvious and not particular". We are BOTH stupid. The first person has said something ridiculous. And me, instead of just using a non-stupid argument to point that it is ridiculous, I made uselessly a fool of myself by talking about people who like Christmas as if I'm too stupid to notice that this argument does not have any grip on the initial sentence. Either I thought it had grip, and in this case I'm an idiot, or I know it had no grip, and in this case I'm an idiot for uselessly choosing to look like one instead of saying the hundreds of other things that could have been constructive.

cauch 1y ago

> Fair, but tbh, I'd categorize fascism mostly by the combination of Syndicalism and the nationalist approach to overthrowing capitalism. Oh, so your two first points are 1. people don't like to work, 2. not adopting the radical ideology of self-declared chiefs of industry. (Don't take it seriously, it is just to show that everyone can do the same lame argumentation than you have done with everything, and that therefore it has no weight at all) > Yes, because this author's points were ridiculous Not sure who you are referring to as "author". Eco? The author of the OpenCulture article? Someone in HN comments? 404media? But it does not really matter, does it? Imagine someone says "all the dogs are purple". Then I say "what they said is ridiculous because the fact that people like Christmas is obvious and not particular". We are BOTH stupid. The first person has said something ridiculous. And me, instead of just using a non-stupid argument to point that it is ridiculous, I made uselessly a fool of myself by talking about people who like Christmas as if I'm too stupid to notice that this argument does not have any grip on the initial sentence. Either I thought it had grip, and in this case I'm an idiot, or I know it had no grip, and in this case I'm an idiot for uselessly choosing to look like one instead of saying the hundreds of other things that could have been constructive.