It's funny to see the amount of leeway you're willing to give to some people, contrasted with the amount of scrutiny you give to others. I'm sure you'll say it's about "recognizing patterns" in said people, but then that's the pattern I see with you. Going to nitpick the smallest details in one case, overlooking the blatant in the other.
I mean, sure. We all have our biases, we all have posters we've discussed certain things more with, and others less with. Like I said, I wanted to explore what Lexicus meant, but missed my window of opportunity at the time. You on the other hand opted for judgement. But in other cases, where
you present leeway that you're willing to give people, it's the other way around.
The reason for this is simple: like I said, we all have our biases. Problem is you don't seem aware of yours. I like and trust a lot of Lexicus' arguments - that's my bias here. That's why I wanted to explore it more even if I would've ended up disagreeing.
You have a weird and strangely self-serving way to describe "drop of a hat" here, because openly advocating authoritarianism doesn't fit the bill.
Would you prefer "selectively and arguably hypocritically" instead?
I doubt that, because you'd take it as a personal attack, and then this discussion would go even less constructively than it is right now.
To try and explain this further: I disagree with your description of people who use the word "fascist" at the drop of a hat. You disagree with my use of it. So how to do we explain, to each other - two people predisposed to disagreement on this subject generally - the gap between these disagreements?
No, it's about concepts, not words. That shows an absolutely fundamental misunderstanding in the very basis of the reasoning, and considering how often we had this conversation, it's not a misunderstanding that I can believe is honest in any way.
Just a continuation of the incredible double standards noticed above.
Okay, so you're about concepts and not the precise word used. That's fair. It's still a leap from authoritarianism to fascism. An arguable one for sure.
I mean, I think you overestimate my ability to categorise every past discussion we've ever had in some kind of internal database. I have a baby daughter (and other children), as well as a bunch of symptoms that fit long Covid. My memory is
shot these days. I pride myself on having a good history of my discussions with other posters, and you're included in that. But it's not absolute. So you separating out "concepts" vs. "words" is useful. Helpful.
Assuming that I'm being dishonest in any way is not. As are any unrealistic standards you impose on me for not apparently remembering in perfect detail past iterations of this conversation.
So, back to concepts for a minute. What is the difference here, now, between the concept of fascism vs. someone being a fascist? What am I missing in your reasoning that lets
you call people fascist-adjacent, but doesn't let others do the same? Is it simply because you've made it relevant to the OP of this thread; the opening question? Which renders it a concept to be argued, vs. a word applied as a label? Am I anywhere near the right understanding?
