[flagged]
As to fascism that remains to be seen. If by fascism you mean the actual meaning of the term, i.e. (section headings from Britannica [1]) Opposition to Marxism and socialism, Opposition to parliamentary democracy, Opposition to political and cultural liberalism, Totalitarian ambitions, Conservative economic programs and Corporatism I think there is some chance of this taking hold. Let's take these characteristics one at a time:
Opposition to Marxism and socialism: clearly present in the current US government, in my opinion rightly so since these ideologies have been shown to lead to disaster time and time again.
Opposition to parliamentary democracy: not present in the current US government, somewhat present in the current "democratic" party where DSA members want to radically change the way the country is governed by abolishing the Senate, abolishing the presidency, abolishing the supreme court and replace it with something resembling a politburo [2]
Opposition to political and cultural liberalism: clearly present in the current US government, to be expected given that the US two-party system largely comes down to 'political and cultural conservatism' versus 'political and cultural liberalism'
Totalitarian ambitions: some people in the current and previous US governments think and thought they could rule this way, they were and are held back by the courts and other institutions
Conservative economic programs: partly present in the current US government, to be expected given that it is part and parcel of the Republican program. Partly because a large part of the economic program (around 59% of the budget, data from 2025) consists of mandatory spending on social security (~22%), Medicare (14%), Medicaid (10%) and other mandatory programs (13%)
Corporatism (which according to Britannica means 'the theory and practice of organising society into “corporations” subordinate to the state ... workers and employers organised into industrial and professional corporations serving as organs of political representation and controlling to a large extent the persons and activities within their jurisdiction'): not present in the current US government, partly present in the "democratic" party where the DSA pushes an amalgamation of similar policies
What are your thoughts on this subject now that I made an attempt to put the term 'fascism' in its historical context?
While you are here worried about some hypothetical possibility of some socialist getting few seats. You miss that you won't have elections anymore.
The fact that the vast majority of people are not calling the same things fascist as OP is, tells me this seems to be a quite controversial opinion.
But at the same time, I don't hold that position passionately. Maybe it is fascism. It's not "blatant", but it's arguable.
Semantic arguments are never very interesting. It's more reasonable to simply argue that something is immoral - to argue the specifics of your disagreement - rather than to fight over whether a specific term applies, which would serve as emotional leverage for your argument due to its connections to historical atrocities. That's some kind of logical fallacy that I can't name.
You don't agree with my exact political views?! Then you are a fascist.
Also blatant fascism? By which definition? the OP article pretty much cites a single blog post as his evidence of DHH being a fascist; but never really defines fascism.
I get it DHH is not a very likeable guy, and a bit of a prick but calling him a fascist or taking childish jabs like calling Omarchy "vibecoded scripts on top of Arch" really removes a lot of credibility
Words are not always used in a rigid black-and-white manner according to their definition... understanding and being able to deal with this, without getting angry or trying to "correct" people, is what makes for good social etiquette IMO.
> Why does "some of the things I disagree with are fascists" seem to be a common trope among certain walks of life?
Seems pretty reasonable to me. Now, to make an actual argument: do you contest that a lot of leaders in tech are ideologically fascists or do you contest that this is an issue?
Maybe you could tell us what, specifically, the author refers to as fascist that you don't consider to be fascist?
Is it fascist to not want to become a minority based on how we see them often treated badly? I think it's normal to fear that.
Racial essentialism, xenophobia and white supremacy are all fascist. Praising and supporting right-wing extremists is fascist. Believing in ethnic cleansing and that non-whites need to be forcibly removed is fascist. Believing all non-Christian religion needs to be banned is fascist. Equating "gypsies" to dogs is fascist.
When you believe the things that fascists believe, it is accurate to call you a fascist.
Obviously, you will disagree with my interpretation and the interpretation of many others, and I'm not interested in having that argument, because I know it will be futile. The point is that your original hyperbolic assertion that the author had no rationale for considering DHH to be fascist other than pure arbitrary spite is incorrect. They have a rationale, you just disagree with it.
I did not assert there was no rationale, and that was never my intent.
> When you believe the things that fascists believe, it is accurate to call you a fascist.
I never claimed to believe any of the things that "fascists believe".