I think maybe the article goes too far, perhaps begging the question. It is one thing to say that people have unreconcilable beliefs, ones that cause insult or injury as a result of that conflict. It is harder to put them in categories and say that "fascism" is forcing a belief on other people out of a desire to reduce harm and "rakishness" is acting consistent with another set of beliefs that does not find harm in that behavior. I don't know of a philosophically acceptable definition of rakishness, but Fascism has several definitions by both proponents and detractors. Proponents would say that it has an element of blotting out weak, foreign things and promoting strong, native things. Detractors would say that it is whatever is needed to get people to fear and hate an outgroup. Umberto Eco's definition of "ur-Fascism" proposed a framework of features that go together but not necessarily found in every Fascist belief system. I like that definition because it doesn't require people to explicitly call their movement Fascist and it presents the beliefs/behavior as something more innate to the human experience and not a product of modernity.

The dilution of the word Fascist to mean someone who would censor you for some reason, has been bad for discussions of Fascism and its ilk. Now the word seems to include the person who asks you to show them respect by using their correct name or pronouncing it correctly, as well as the person who would execute you for writing "sick" literature that contradicts a fascist belief system, somehow equating the two.

Are there rakes in the world? Do some people think they are not rakes, while other people think they are? Probably. But maybe it is better to try to agree on what is really going on in real discussions, rather than hypotheticals about candies.