I figure that's intended as a "gotcha", but a hallmark of any autocracy, fascism included, is the factional fights and purges. And few understand, but being an early supporter of fascism actually increases one's statistical chances of ngmi.
For what it's worth, the way you've phrased this question doesn't sound like you want to discuss any of these issues. It sounds like you have bones to pick with what people have said and want to argue about it.
Yes. He's insinuating that the only reason you would dislike musk is sure to his association with trump. He's also insinuating that people who dislike trump just like the opposite of what trump like, so that is trump dislikes musk then they musk like him.
My definition of fascist is a person that is ok with, or perhaps takes active steps towards, a society where powerful people can manipulate/pick/write the rules in order to further increase their power. By this definition it's not "absurd" at all to call him a fascist.
Yes, I realize there are degrees.
No point telling me that the Wikipedia definition is different. This is the definition which I think is the most useful because it captures the essence of why fascism is bad: it's an instability of the system.
According to this definition all the usual suspects are fascists (Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Mao), but also characters like Trump and his enablers, and Musk and his fanboys.
I ask because your definition is very broad. Generally, every political system has business owners / elites / lords who have more influence.
The Bolsheviks had almost exclusive influence and control, but they weren't fascist.
Most liberal democracies have elites and lobbyists who have more influence than the common man. they aren't fascist.
I think your definition is convenient because it's so broad and then you can apply it to who you dislike.
Among the american elite, at least 1/5 of congress, most of the senate, most of the fortune 500, a good chunk of hollywood would qualify as fascist according to this definition.
> The Bolsheviks had almost exclusive influence and control, but they weren't fascist.
Who is "the Bolsheviks"? Most supporters of the party did not have as explicit goal to accumulate power for themselves. If you're referring to Lenin and Stalin, they certainly where fascists by the useful definition.
> Among the american elite, at least 1/5 of congress, most of the senate, most of the fortune 500, a good chunk of hollywood would qualify as fascist according to this definition.
No, I disagree. Most of those people have only enough power to effect miniscule tweaks to the system. Those don't qualify. Like I said, it is in part a matter of degree.
> I think your definition is convenient because it's so broad and then you can apply it to who you dislike.
Frankly, I would phrase this question the same way. But it has more to do with society, that simply just don't want to be responsible for anything. And that is the same society that put Musk on pedestal, that Simpsons immortalized and the same society has a bones to pick when reminded about those glorious moments, but not to just be ashamed of themselves and their behaviour, like you are demonstrating here just perfectly.
Here's a thought exercise. Could you list history's top 5 worst fascists in descending order? #1 would be the worst. and would Elon make it? Would Trump?
I know this was intended to be a snarky remark but I'm going to reply anyways. Despite US politics being the way it is, the world isn't binary. Just because 2 bad people are fighting each other, it doesn't make one of them good. The enemy of my enemy isn't always my friend. Sometimes it's just another enemy.
You're right. But Elon became Bad when he partnered with Trump. And prior to that, he was saving the world from climate change , and Tesla's were very popular status symbols for that.
In 20 days musk will be a goodie and then you mustn’t at all say anything negative at all about him. He’s a goodie. Again, trump is a baddie (baddie status began in 2016 fyi, before that point he was a goodie).
