Language is collaborative. It’s true that the meaning of words can change over time, but if you just redefine words however you want, then the ability to communicate breaks down. The words “dog” and “cat” may have fluid meanings but if I just decide to start calling cats dogs and dogs cats, then it’s going to result in a lot of pointless confusion.
Let’s say I was going to completely accept your definition of fascism. That would mean that going forward, any time I wanted to determine if something was fascism or not, I would have to DM you specifically to find out. Because your definition is both nonstandard and does not follow any kind of consistent, coherent rules. It would be impossible for me to really agree with you about what is and isn’t fascism, because you haven’t given me any sort of coherent way to distinguish between what you think is fascist and what you don’t think is fascist.
Different people do define fascism in different ways, which does create confusion, but at least with most people they can give me a standard by which I can evaluate things. Even if that standard is wrong, like, “Fascism is whenever the government does anything,” it is at least possible to evaluate whether something counts as fascism by that definition, without having to ask the person every single time.
I fully agree on the first paragraph. Unless the goal is poetry, I wouldn’t recommend using completely random words. And believe me, my much younger distressed autistic ass has tried exactly that, not once, but twice. But no, I didn’t expect to be correctly interpreted. But people get surprisingly upset when you do that.
Yet I do feel like talking is much more similar to painting. I have more theories about this if you like.
The information in my head (and I reason this is true for others) is at least partially stored in the connection of neurons. Language is a construct and a tool. In my experience, it is a very restricted one, at least to fully express what I mean most of the time.
I find I struggle a great deal finding the right words, yet I know a great deal of vocabulary. My first language was not English, and I often combine languages to fit my intent better, but people tend to hate that. It’s like a palette; what words actually fit the feeling of what I am trying to express?
There’s, of course, also context as insider knowledge (also on the internet) which can greatly affect the meaning of the same words. So does intonation, but that isn’t possible in text.
When I try to express the feeling of a dog, “dog” is a good fit. Complex concepts like consciousness, reality, love, and fascism can’t properly be defined after so many books.
So admittedly my definition is a gross simplification, but I do in fact rely on real logic (prone to human error) to come to such a summary, and most of the words can be taken in a general well-known context.
“Fascism is the expression of hate” would have been an equally good summary.
The term “hate” is just as complex. For me, to hate is to feel strong negative feelings towards a person with no valid explanation.
What is a valid explanation to feel negative towards a person? When they have personally wronged you.
Feeling they wronged you is a fully subjective individual experience.
Someone of the same skin color once stole their bike, which can explain fear and the feeling of hate towards that skin color. Racism is not fascism. Expressing racism, hate towards anyone but the thief themselves, especially when educated enough to understand that other individuals who look similar are their own individuals and unrelated to your inner feelings, that is what I believe is unquestionably fascist.
Edit: i didnt even get to include that disrespect for no valid reason is to me an assumption of authority. Thats why i believe authority to be ultimately toxic its when people feel they are better then others so pleasantries flow one way.
Authority is important to mention in context of facism and while it related in the logic i rely on to define facism there is admittedly no good puzzle piece here to do it justice.
Fascism is a specific political ideology that emerged in 20th century Italy, developed by Mussolini. What you’re describing, not recognizing other people as individuals, is something that has existed for as long as there have been humans.
When prehistoric tribes were killing each other, they weren’t respecting each other as individuals, but that wasn’t fascism. There wasn’t even a state, political ideology did not exist.
When feudal lords worked their serfs to death, they weren’t respecting them as individuals, but that was not fascism, it was feudalism.
Fascism is not the correct word for the thing you’re describing. It doesn’t seem possible to reason with you, so this is probably my last attempt.
Not recognizing other people as individuals does feel core to fascism but I cannot disagree with your nuanced examples. I would indeed not recognize those historic mechanics as fascism.
What word would you pick that better fits my sentiment?
When i analyze what i recognize as fascism around and try to nail it down to the sin itself. What it almost boils down to is this not recognizing people. If we could “magically” not commit that sin then fascism couldn’t possibly take hold. its a crucial element to my present day understanding. I wouldn’t know how else to recognize it in people but i experience that humanity is getting plagued by something horrible.
I am sad you feel i cant be reasoned with, in my experience you provided good material to reflect on end i have already admitted my definition was a simplification. At least give me a few days of time to process before i decide to refocus my perspectives.
I apologize for being overly harsh. I think we were just on different wavelengths.
I think the word you’re looking for is “dehumanization.” Dehumanization is something that is utilized by fascism, but it’s also used in lots of other contexts. To dehumanize someone is to view or treat someone as less than human. An experience where one’s beliefs or values are not respected may feel dehumanizing. A person might find their job dehumanizing, or dealing with beuraucracy dehumanizing, and so on.
Fascism implies a mass political movement, and takes dehumanization to an extreme that is necessary to lay the groundwork for the extermination of minorities.
Some degree of dehumanization is normal, especially when interacting with rude or insensitive people, or with uncaring systems. But that’s not enough to constitute fascism on its own.
Language is collaborative. It’s true that the meaning of words can change over time, but if you just redefine words however you want, then the ability to communicate breaks down. The words “dog” and “cat” may have fluid meanings but if I just decide to start calling cats dogs and dogs cats, then it’s going to result in a lot of pointless confusion.
Let’s say I was going to completely accept your definition of fascism. That would mean that going forward, any time I wanted to determine if something was fascism or not, I would have to DM you specifically to find out. Because your definition is both nonstandard and does not follow any kind of consistent, coherent rules. It would be impossible for me to really agree with you about what is and isn’t fascism, because you haven’t given me any sort of coherent way to distinguish between what you think is fascist and what you don’t think is fascist.
Different people do define fascism in different ways, which does create confusion, but at least with most people they can give me a standard by which I can evaluate things. Even if that standard is wrong, like, “Fascism is whenever the government does anything,” it is at least possible to evaluate whether something counts as fascism by that definition, without having to ask the person every single time.
I fully agree on the first paragraph. Unless the goal is poetry, I wouldn’t recommend using completely random words. And believe me, my much younger distressed autistic ass has tried exactly that, not once, but twice. But no, I didn’t expect to be correctly interpreted. But people get surprisingly upset when you do that.
Yet I do feel like talking is much more similar to painting. I have more theories about this if you like.
The information in my head (and I reason this is true for others) is at least partially stored in the connection of neurons. Language is a construct and a tool. In my experience, it is a very restricted one, at least to fully express what I mean most of the time.
I find I struggle a great deal finding the right words, yet I know a great deal of vocabulary. My first language was not English, and I often combine languages to fit my intent better, but people tend to hate that. It’s like a palette; what words actually fit the feeling of what I am trying to express?
There’s, of course, also context as insider knowledge (also on the internet) which can greatly affect the meaning of the same words. So does intonation, but that isn’t possible in text.
When I try to express the feeling of a dog, “dog” is a good fit. Complex concepts like consciousness, reality, love, and fascism can’t properly be defined after so many books.
So admittedly my definition is a gross simplification, but I do in fact rely on real logic (prone to human error) to come to such a summary, and most of the words can be taken in a general well-known context.
“Fascism is the expression of hate” would have been an equally good summary.
The term “hate” is just as complex. For me, to hate is to feel strong negative feelings towards a person with no valid explanation.
What is a valid explanation to feel negative towards a person? When they have personally wronged you.
Feeling they wronged you is a fully subjective individual experience.
Someone of the same skin color once stole their bike, which can explain fear and the feeling of hate towards that skin color. Racism is not fascism. Expressing racism, hate towards anyone but the thief themselves, especially when educated enough to understand that other individuals who look similar are their own individuals and unrelated to your inner feelings, that is what I believe is unquestionably fascist.
Edit: i didnt even get to include that disrespect for no valid reason is to me an assumption of authority. Thats why i believe authority to be ultimately toxic its when people feel they are better then others so pleasantries flow one way.
Authority is important to mention in context of facism and while it related in the logic i rely on to define facism there is admittedly no good puzzle piece here to do it justice.
Fascism is a specific political ideology that emerged in 20th century Italy, developed by Mussolini. What you’re describing, not recognizing other people as individuals, is something that has existed for as long as there have been humans.
When prehistoric tribes were killing each other, they weren’t respecting each other as individuals, but that wasn’t fascism. There wasn’t even a state, political ideology did not exist.
When feudal lords worked their serfs to death, they weren’t respecting them as individuals, but that was not fascism, it was feudalism.
Fascism is not the correct word for the thing you’re describing. It doesn’t seem possible to reason with you, so this is probably my last attempt.
Not recognizing other people as individuals does feel core to fascism but I cannot disagree with your nuanced examples. I would indeed not recognize those historic mechanics as fascism.
What word would you pick that better fits my sentiment?
When i analyze what i recognize as fascism around and try to nail it down to the sin itself. What it almost boils down to is this not recognizing people. If we could “magically” not commit that sin then fascism couldn’t possibly take hold. its a crucial element to my present day understanding. I wouldn’t know how else to recognize it in people but i experience that humanity is getting plagued by something horrible.
I am sad you feel i cant be reasoned with, in my experience you provided good material to reflect on end i have already admitted my definition was a simplification. At least give me a few days of time to process before i decide to refocus my perspectives.
I apologize for being overly harsh. I think we were just on different wavelengths.
I think the word you’re looking for is “dehumanization.” Dehumanization is something that is utilized by fascism, but it’s also used in lots of other contexts. To dehumanize someone is to view or treat someone as less than human. An experience where one’s beliefs or values are not respected may feel dehumanizing. A person might find their job dehumanizing, or dealing with beuraucracy dehumanizing, and so on.
Fascism implies a mass political movement, and takes dehumanization to an extreme that is necessary to lay the groundwork for the extermination of minorities.
Some degree of dehumanization is normal, especially when interacting with rude or insensitive people, or with uncaring systems. But that’s not enough to constitute fascism on its own.
Thats a good nuance, Thank you.