Ten Signs of Fascism. America has all of them • Hacker News Board

Re: Ten Signs of Fascism. America has all of them

#131

Post by mindslight » Tue, May 19, 2026, 1:42 PM UTC

ArtemZ wrote: post #130

mindslight wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've long described the bureaucratic authoritarian corporatist state as building fascism from the other direction, ala inverted totalitarianism . But your list is a conflation of a lot of things - some valid critiques, straightforward responses to the open fascism of the Republican party, and some flat out straw men (eg there are no significant numbers of people " dreaming of the lost socialist utopia of USSR "). And…

There is no "fascism" in 21st century because there are no fascist movements or parties. The term "fascism" doesn't mean much, it is just a word used by certains movements back in the past to self describe. Therefore if a party or movement doesn't self describe as fascist then it isn't. Every attempt to define it becomes way too broad and could be easily applied to almost every country in the world. The term is recen…

We can analyze Fascism, summarize its general aspects, and apply the definition to other movements. Hence why we can call Nazism fascism, even though they were separate parties. Trumpism is fascist. This is the point the article is making, and it has been made thoroughly elsewhere as well. At this point, it's is just basic table stakes discussion context for anybody who loves individual liberty or believes in the Constitution and limited government. If you're still unable to even entertain the idea, then you're part of the problem. Based on your touchstone strawmen of "leftists", "radical", and "activists", it sounds like you've got a heavy case of TDS - the real TDS, not the accusation-in-a-mirror version.

Re: Ten Signs of Fascism. America has all of them

#132

Post by tomhow » Tue, May 19, 2026, 6:17 PM UTC

mindslight wrote: post #117

tomhow wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We’ve turned off the flags. The story was flagged by many users. The problem with articles like this is the discussions are repetitive and predictable. We rarely see anyone approaching them with genuine curiosity. The topic of whether this president and administration are befitting of particular labels and historical analogies has been continually discussed (in broader society and on HN) since about 2015. And in the…

The "discussions" are repetitive because the sparks of curious and constructive discussion are shouted down or used up by people who just want to rail against the framing. If you want to support intellectually curious discussion, then letting whole topics get shut down because they are partisan-inflammatory is the wrong thing to do - this merely supports the dynamic of the hecklers' veto. Rather you need to police th…

Let's consider your own contributions to this thread, most notably this one:

> At this point, it's is just basic table stakes discussion context for anybody who loves individual liberty or believes in the Constitution and limited government. If you're still unable to even entertain the idea, then you're part of the problem. Based on your touchstone strawmen of "leftists", "radical", and "activists", it sounds like you've got a heavy case of TDS - the real TDS, not the accusation-in-a-mirror version.

I understand you feel strongly about the topic, and from the frenetic tone in most of your comments, deeply feel a sense of urgency and peril. I'm sympathetic to that feeling, I really am.

But it still breaks the guidelines, all while you assert that it's our job to make these threads orderly:

> you need to police the partisan disruptors better

The problem is everyone believes they are reasonable, moderate ones and that their opponents are the "partisan disruptors" who need to be policed.

From a moderation point of view, there's no winning in “policing” people on issues that are deeply entangled with their personal identity or their sense of physical safety. (And that's before you even contemplate the perversity of appealing for greater “policing” of a discussion about this, of all topics.)

Our role is to uphold the guidelines, no matter the side, and topics that are repetitive and that inevitably attract comments like your very own are very well established as being against the guidelines.

Re: Ten Signs of Fascism. America has all of them

#133

Post by tomhow » Tue, May 19, 2026, 6:33 PM UTC

mindslight wrote: post #131

ArtemZ wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no "fascism" in 21st century because there are no fascist movements or parties. The term "fascism" doesn't mean much, it is just a word used by certains movements back in the past to self describe. Therefore if a party or movement doesn't self describe as fascist then it isn't. Every attempt to define it becomes way too broad and could be easily applied to almost every country in the world. The term is recen…

We can analyze Fascism, summarize its general aspects, and apply the definition to other movements. Hence why we can call Nazism fascism, even though they were separate parties. Trumpism is fascist. This is the point the article is making, and it has been made thoroughly elsewhere as well. At this point, it's is just basic table stakes discussion context for anybody who loves individual liberty or believes in the Con…

Please don't comment like this, especially given your own appeal. I've replied here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48197114.

Re: Ten Signs of Fascism. America has all of them

#134

Post by mindslight » Tue, May 19, 2026, 7:08 PM UTC

tomhow wrote: post #132

mindslight wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "discussions" are repetitive because the sparks of curious and constructive discussion are shouted down or used up by people who just want to rail against the framing. If you want to support intellectually curious discussion, then letting whole topics get shut down because they are partisan-inflammatory is the wrong thing to do - this merely supports the dynamic of the hecklers' veto. Rather you need to police th…

Let's consider your own contributions to this thread, most notably this one: > At this point, it's is just basic table stakes discussion context for anybody who loves individual liberty or believes in the Constitution and limited government. If you're still unable to even entertain the idea, then you're part of the problem. Based on your touchstone strawmen of "leftists", "radical", and "activists", it sounds like yo…

>> you need to police the partisan disruptors better

> The problem is everyone believes they are reasonable, moderate ones and that their opponents are the "partisan disruptors" who need to be policed.

I said what I said taking into account the mirror view. The issue I'm pointing out isn't the disagreement between disruptors and myself, but rather the disagreement between disruptors and the context/assumptions of the submission. That is what brings the discussion down into the level of a flamewar battle, rather than conversation being able to grow curiously/constructively within the context of the submission.

Let's say there were some other submission exploring why Trump is so "irrationally" disliked, from the perspective of someone who wants to change people's minds and make them see some redeeming aspects. I'd say that going into that thread, calling Trump a fascist, and otherwise not engaging with the points of the submission would be similarly incendiary and destructive to curious/constructive conversation. And by the same standard it should be policed, even though I'd most likely personally agree with it.

For my comment that you called out, sure, there is some aggression there. I'll own that, and I certainly could have done better. But look at the context - I was mirroring the aggression in the comment that was responding to me, which categorically rejected the entire topic under discussion out of the blue! That is exactly the type of nothing-but-disruptive comment I'm talking about.

If I were to write it again, I guess I'd try to stop after the "Trumpism is fascist" material disagreement and leave it at that. Although I don't see how that version would support constructive discussion either.

edit: Re: the perversity of appealing for greater “policing” of a discussion about this, of all topics I don't see that it is perverse at all. While the simple view is that the police are an authoritarian force that cracks down on freedom (as we're often discussing their abuses), the more encompassing view is that they are necessary as otherwise some other group invariably steps into the power vacuum. There is a general reason you moderate this forum, right?

Re: Ten Signs of Fascism. America has all of them

#135

Post by tomhow » Wed, May 20, 2026, 8:11 AM UTC

mindslight wrote: post #134

tomhow wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's consider your own contributions to this thread, most notably this one: > At this point, it's is just basic table stakes discussion context for anybody who loves individual liberty or believes in the Constitution and limited government. If you're still unable to even entertain the idea, then you're part of the problem. Based on your touchstone strawmen of "leftists", "radical", and "activists", it sounds like yo…

>> you need to police the partisan disruptors better > The problem is everyone believes they are reasonable, moderate ones and that their opponents are the "partisan disruptors" who need to be policed. I said what I said taking into account the mirror view. The issue I'm pointing out isn't the disagreement between disruptors and myself, but rather the disagreement between disruptors and the context/assumptions of the…

If the simplified version of your statement is: this could have been an opportunity for a discussion that led to more people accepting that the USA is fascist, if only we had moderated it better, and we should work equally hard to moderate the discussion well if there's a thread that could lead to more people thinking the USA isn't fascist, then... OK.

But it's unviable to try to moderate like this. Given the demands on our time and the purpose of the site, the upside just isn't there, on a topic that has been discussed frequently for more than a decade. After this amount of time, no meaningful number of people are apt to change their minds on that question.

My comment about “policing” was meant in good spirit, but there's an important point there. We really don't see ourselves as police; we're here to uphold guidelines not enforce laws. Our role is to create the conditions for interesting discussions about new topics.

Usually that's about new technologies and projects, but there's plenty of space for discussions about politics, and as I've said multiple times in this thread, we'd be happy to host regular discussions about new ideas that can move the world beyond the current political dysfunction, and I'd happily spend hours each day helping to make discussions like that more fruitful.

Re: Ten Signs of Fascism. America has all of them

#136

Post by throwawaypath » Wed, May 20, 2026, 4:24 PM UTC

thrance wrote: post #32

smt88 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The midterms will be a landslide if allowed to run fairly. Trump’s response to that landslide will tell us whether there’s hope. I don’t expect Civil War levels of violence because the country is mostly united in its hatred of how the GOP is running it. No large group of people will pick up arms to support Trump’s right to invade countries and ruin the economy.

> The midterms will be a landslide if allowed to run fairly. SCOTUS just repelled the "voting rights" part of the civil rights acts, allowing states to gerrymander the black vote out. Which all red states immediately did. The midterms already won't be fair, and it can get worse until then. > the country is mostly united in its hatred of how the GOP is running it. It really isn't, 30% of the country is still diehard M…

[flagged]

Re: Ten Signs of Fascism. America has all of them

#137

Post by mindslight » Wed, May 20, 2026, 5:55 PM UTC

tomhow wrote: post #135

mindslight wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> you need to police the partisan disruptors better > The problem is everyone believes they are reasonable, moderate ones and that their opponents are the "partisan disruptors" who need to be policed. I said what I said taking into account the mirror view. The issue I'm pointing out isn't the disagreement between disruptors and myself, but rather the disagreement between disruptors and the context/assumptions of the…

If the simplified version of your statement is: this could have been an opportunity for a discussion that led to more people accepting that the USA is fascist, if only we had moderated it better, and we should work equally hard to moderate the discussion well if there's a thread that could lead to more people thinking the USA isn't fascist , then... OK. But it's unviable to try to moderate like this. Given the demand…

> If the simplified version of your statement is: this could have been an opportunity for a discussion that led to more people accepting that the USA is fascist

No, this is actually the opposite of where I'm coming from. I don't see many people changing their minds, especially at this point, and especially in the online-impersonal context.

Rather what I'd hope for is some breathing room to foster discussions more of the form: if we take it as a given that the USA is fascist, how do we respond and what are the next steps. That's what I would see as being able to stay in the constructive/curious mindset - not merely prolixly re-litigating basic true/false judgements pertaining to the article.

As it stands there are some comments that point at some direction, but they end up being the apogee of substantiveness rather than a starting point for a greater discussion. Whether it's sabotage from the outright gaslighters, or even people who agree but are at their own limit on the topic so they can't entertain the idea of something working and end up arguing against it. That partisan re-litigating, no matter how couched, sucks up most of the air in the room.

And sure, the word "police" is harsher than you want to think of yourselves. But that is the underlying dynamic, right? For example when you called out the comment of mine there is an implied "or else" there, right? And personally I don't think that outcome was particularly just, as I was responding to a comment that was already strongly against the guidelines of curious discussion. But I do just have to accept what amounts to tone policing - like police, your emphasis is on keeping order.

Re: Ten Signs of Fascism. America has all of them

#138

Post by Schmerika » Fri, May 29, 2026, 11:05 AM UTC

maratc wrote: post #111

Schmerika wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "anyone with an opinion different from mine must be a paid shill" Not remotely what I said. One of the better HN guidelines here is to try and interpret comments you read in the best possible light. I recommend it. What I actually said is simply correct - there are tech billionaires who do have strong reasons to flag certain topics on HN. And there's no way to stop them from doing so. We rely solely on 100% opaque…

Your favourites have tons of "If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic" stuff. The fact that so much of it is flagged is a feature of this place, not a bug. This feature is why I keep coming here almost daily for the last 15 years or so.

If we weren't heavily complicit in rapidly accelerating fascism, as a direct and immediate outcome of those stories and others like them, then I might agree.

But we are, and I don't. Ignoring those stories as deliberate policy so HNers like yourself can remain impervious to the consequences of our actions is dangerously short sighted.