3 ms·

Well, Wikipedia has multiple[0] definitions and argues that it is contested (as does encyclopedia britannica[1]) and people throw it around like candy[2]; so id

by dijit 1y ago

Well, Wikipedia has multiple[0] definitions and argues that it is contested (as does encyclopedia britannica[1]) and people throw it around like candy[2]; so idkwym; From EB; > There has been considerable disagreement among historians and political scientists about the nature of fascism. Some scholars, for example, regard it as a socially radical movement with ideological ties to the Jacobins of the French Revolution, whereas others see it as an extreme form of conservatism inspired by a 19th-century backlash against the ideals of the Enlightenment. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism [1]: https://www.britannica.com/topic/fascism https://www.britannica.com/topic/fascism [2]: https://x.com/esjesjesj/status/1786062622531477707?s=46&t=rrZiq2pncr62EUAhe52yEQ https://x.com/esjesjesj/status/1786062622531477707?s=46&t=rr...

1718627440 1y ago
This is arguing about the nature of the thing that is described by the word fascism, not arguing about what the word fascism refers to.
- dijit 1y ago
  Completely irrelevant. It’s used as a catch-all slur to mean “evil thing I don’t agree with”, they can mean any of the competing definitions or none - I doubt if they could come up with what they actually ascribe if challenged and not in front of a computer to look up one of the definitions to find something objectionable within that. Which is my entire point really, not really getting what yours is here though. That it has a clear definition? I mean, I don’t think it does but it doesn’t matter. It’s not clear in practical use what people refer to.
  - 1718627440 1y ago
    It does have a specific meaning referring to a historic entity, when its not used as a slur. That's what I wanted to point out, see the sibling comment for clarification. I don't see this to be commonly used as a slur except maybe from people, who also use capitalist as a slur. Most times it is used to describe parties or policies that have national and populist agendas, so I think its not a stretch to compare them to fascistic agendas.

by dijit 1y ago

1718627440 1y ago

This is arguing about the nature of the thing that is described by the word fascism, not arguing about what the word fascism refers to.

dijit 1y ago
Completely irrelevant. It’s used as a catch-all slur to mean “evil thing I don’t agree with”, they can mean any of the competing definitions or none - I doubt if they could come up with what they actually ascribe if challenged and not in front of a computer to look up one of the definitions to find something objectionable within that. Which is my entire point really, not really getting what yours is here though. That it has a clear definition? I mean, I don’t think it does but it doesn’t matter. It’s not clear in practical use what people refer to.
- 1718627440 1y ago
  It does have a specific meaning referring to a historic entity, when its not used as a slur. That's what I wanted to point out, see the sibling comment for clarification. I don't see this to be commonly used as a slur except maybe from people, who also use capitalist as a slur. Most times it is used to describe parties or policies that have national and populist agendas, so I think its not a stretch to compare them to fascistic agendas.