Hacker News Reader

Comment by eropple | Hacker News Reader

I define "fascist" much as Ian Danskin does:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Luu1Beb8ng&list=PLJA_jUddXv...

Its critical aspects include inherent beliefs of racial superiority and the need to "recapture" a great society lost. And there are plenty on YouTube with large followings. Though some have been banned since. Chud Supreme Carl, "Sargon of Akkad", comes to mind as an example, and one I'm willing to namedrop because 1) he has been banned, and 2) dear Carl is now running for the European Parliament as a member of literal-fascist Ukip.

View on HN

> I define "fascist"

I'm sorry, but you don't get to do that! `fascism` already has an established meaning. Please make up a new word for what you believe `fascism` means.

Going by the dictionary definition:

> 1. a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

> 2. a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

This is the exact opposite of Carl's beliefs and agenda.

EDIT: how can we have any discussion about anything if everyone gets to define words to mean whatever they want to mean?

> I'm sorry, but you don't get to do that! `fascism` already has an established meaning. Please make up a new word for what you believe `fascism` means

I see your point, but honestly, that's not how language work. Changes in meaning over time are not so uncommon, and "fascist" has been used in a loose sense for years (at least in Italian), but looking at Wikipedia this holds for English too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism

Your dictionary editor gets to do that. That narrow definition you quote did not come out of thin air. Or maybe it did.

I’ve never heard of ‘fascisti’ - that’s just Italian for “fascists”, not an Organization.

There is a lot more nuance to what the word came to mean that is impossible to capture in one or two paragraphs. The Wikipedia page is already a great improvement over that, recommend that as a source instead, collectively reviewed by hundreds of editors.

Well, a lot of people seem to have accepted that it's racist to oppose discriminating based on race in college admissions... This would not be the first time in recent memory that a word came to be used for exactly the opposite meaning.

I'd love to hear from someone who thinks that that isn't a definition in use today, or that affirmative action wouldn't have been considered prima facie racist a century ago, no matter the races.

> how can we have any discussion about anything if everyone gets to define words to mean whatever they want to mean?

Redefining terms has been common on reddit for years now but it is gaining ground here quite steadily. It's pretty disheartening that the mods seem fine with this, perhaps they see it as an ends justifies the means type of thing.

Perhaps it's time to put it in the Terms of Service that blatant disregard for dictionary definitions shall lead to suspension or an outright ban!

No one will willingly give up their memes, they seem to have the allure of the ring of power.

But from "Sargon's" perspective, UKIP isn't fascist - it's the party attempting to remove the UK from the growing, minimally accountable supreme bureaucracy known as the EU.

It's always better to understand your enemies before you start to insult them. Otherwise your insults just increase polarization, because while people who agree with you will find them obviously true... People on the other side will find them objectively false. And we don't need more polarization nowadays.

> inherent beliefs of racial superiority

IMO painting all belief in racial differences as racist/fascist (which is what this tends to devolve into) is a great way to ignore actual problems. Problems like medicines being tested on populations of primarily white men and women not always working for african americans or other groups... And of course this is an area where one side is politically correct (no differences below the skin) and another is factually correct (different ethnic groups have significant differences in susceptibility to disease, athletic performance, etc).

Oh that's stupid! We (non racist people) know that black people are black and white people are white (biological differences), we just don't think it's in any way a reason to treat them differently. (same thing with men and women ;)

> we just don't think it's in any way a reason to treat them differently

This is blatantly false. At least different skin color can lead to different treatment in face makeup and portrait photography. Not to mention all sorts of different needs from men and women. Your belief of biological differences should have no impact on social implication cannot be more wrong.

You think UKIP is fascist? Wikipedia defines that with the phrase "...dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition...". Many powerful politically inclined groups are forcibly silencing their opponents these days, but UKIP is not among them.

You left out the first part of that sentence, which reads: “Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of radical, right-wing, authoritarian ultranationalism...”

On political topics, Wikipedia is extremely untrustworthy. Paid political workers are writing things like that. Lots of definitions have been changing over the past decade or two. Fascism and also Nazi would not normally have included "right-wing" in the definition in the prior century.

You can of course define it however you want but that doesn't mean your definition is correct or even close to the actual definition.

You see, according to your and Danskin's definition roughly 20% (and it's growing since more political parties are adopting the same politics) of the swedish population are fascist based on last years election where the Sweden Democrats (labeled as racists and fascists in the mainstream media) became the 2nd largest political party.

The problem here is that the left is tilting so far left that even centrists are being labeled as far-right these days.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com