Hacker News Reader

Comment by chx | Hacker News Reader

What this article missed and most reactions also did: one name in the "Patron Saints" section. One name that should give you pause and even alarm over this and should give you a new angle to investigate this bullshit from.

That name is Filippo Tommaso Marinetti.

He was quite in the business of writing Manifestos a hundred years ago. The one he co-authored in 1919 became really (in)famous.

Edit: Vice didn't miss it. https://www.vice.com/en/article/93kg5d/major-tech-investor-c...

> Other futurist thinkers and artists exist. To call Marinetti in particular a "saint" is a choice.

View on HN

Vice seem to be the only ones who took note:

https://www.vice.com/en/article/93kg5d/major-tech-investor-c...

In case it wasn't too obvious here is the wiki page... since I wasn't too familiar with him.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filippo_Tommaso_Marinetti

From wiki:

> He opposed Fascism's later exaltation of existing institutions, terming them "reactionary," and, after walking out of the 1920 Fascist party congress in disgust, withdrew from politics for three years.

The actual manifesto looks better than many countries have today: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist_Manifesto

You left out the next sentence, which reads

> However, he remained a notable force in developing the party philosophy throughout the regime's existence.

Not to mention his antisemitism.

While not a fan of this guy, I just wanted to point out that you can't really judge the entirety of someone's work by whether they are antisemitic in the time period this guy lived in because almost everyone was antisemitic back then, including much of the USA (i.e. https://www.history.com/news/wwii-jewish-refugee-ship-st-lou...)

Most everyone seems anti-Semitic these days too. Not much of a difference as far as I can tell.

No, only small vocal anti- groups. Most of the US populace don't see a need to gather pro- demonstrations because it's obvious.

Even without accounting for the fascist manifesto, the Marinetti's 1909 manifesto[1] isn't particularly inspiring either:

    9. We will glorify war − the only true hygiene of the world − militarism, patriotism, the destructive gesture of anarchist, the beautiful Ideas which kill, and the scorn of woman.

Saint patron you said?

[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifesto_of_Futurism#/media...

Really shows where the dude is coming from if he cites such a(n) (in)famous person.

We need to go faster ...

“grow or die”

You're trying to derail that drug-fueled rant to Godwin, while in that list there are much more modern demons of our age: Nick Land, Neven "you don't like conservative arguments but they are right!!1" Sesardic, John Galt, Nordhaus.

Nothing less of what I would expect of a pioneer in XML as main information medium and full-time conman since Ning.

What "Patron Saints" section? Where?

page 18: “Patron Saints of Techno-Optimism”

Actually, given the third paragraph from TFA, both you and the TechCrunch article seem to have Ad Hominem fallacies down pat. They just forgot one that you remembered.

Neither of these seem ad hom? Examining how someone’s wealth biases their worldview is hardly an attack on their person and pointing out that one of the architects and inspirations for Fascism is called a Patron Saint isn’t either. The latter isn’t even ‘guilty by association’ as the author freely makes that association themselves by speaking glowingly of them.

Marc Andreessen having a biased worldview is completely irrelevant to the quality of his arguments or positions, yet the implication in the TC article is exactly that (that maybe you shouldn't take his opinions about economics and technology too seriously because he's a billionaire after all).

Filippo Tommaso Marinetti is more well known as the founder of the Futurist movement, which is presumably what Andreessen is referencing here. Implying (or outright stating) that Marinetti's ideas on Futurism can be safely ignored because he also has less palatable ideas re:Fascism is a textbook example of Ad Hominem.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37926150 and also check the edit of my post https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37925583

Marinetti even tried to have futurism declared the state art of Italy, which would in effect suppress all other art styles.

In this case it seems his views were intertwined, at least in practical application. So it’s relevant to discuss both at the same time.

> Implying (or outright stating) that Marinetti's ideas on Futurism can be safely ignored because he also has less palatable ideas re:Fascism is a textbook example of Ad Hominem.

Except it is not. Or you have no idea of what Ad Hominem arguments are - i.e.: You attack the person instead of the arguments.

In the case of Marinetti, both his positions regarding Futurism and Fascism are intrinsically connected, sharing a noticeable relationship within his world view. To ignore the "less palatable" portion of his worldview to make Futurism more palatable would be faulty reasoning.

Attacking a person's worldview is in fact attacking the person, not the arguments. The arguments being inextricably linked in Marinetti's head does not impact their validity outside his head.

As others have pointed out, even the futurist manifesto is highly problematic. That's what's outside his head - his arguments. And it's arguments that Andreessen is endorsing. So no, this is not an ad hominem.

Absolutely not, when we are discussing the philosophical basis of that worldview.

Those arguments are not simply "linked in Marinetti's head". they are parts of a broader ser of views that would organize the world in a certain manner.

This is brought up due to an apparent endorsement of the author to Marinetti's ideas. Commenters pointing that out is absolutely not an Ad Hominem when those very ideas are being discussed.

I don't remember if there's an informal fallacy of falsely claiming an informal fallacy, but calling this an Ad Hominem is a great example of such.

The ideas are not being discussed. The primary criticism in the OP was "Marinetti was fascist so ignore".

I am happy to repeat myself: "should give you a new angle to investigate this bullshit from".

That's not "ignore this".

To elaborate a little, this thinkpiece will likely influence way more people than it should therefore understanding how it covertly spreads fascist ideas is important. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away.

Once again: I have called for investigating the influence of fascist ideas on this manifesto because the manifesto itself names one of the architects of it a saint. It doesn't matter at all who wrote this, we are only looking at the manifesto.

On another hand, trying to paint futurism and fascism as completely separate falls flat because already the Futurist Manifesto contained some ideas from fascism and besides Marinetti, Carlo Carrà and many more also became an ardest supporter of fascism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortunato_Depero notes

> In the 1930s and 40s Depero continued working, although due to futurism being linked with fascism, the movement started to wane

In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futurism

> Many Italian Futurists supported Fascism [...] The Futurists' association with Fascism after its triumph in 1922 brought them official acceptance in Italy

It's not like I am trying to mash the two together only now, no, they were already together back then.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com