@nicorilla.bsky.social
Quick check before I bow out: would you agree that calling Nazis “left-wing” because “socialist” was in the name is obviously nonsense? If so, you’ve just agreed that definitions matter more than labels; which is all I’ve been saying. Good day.
December 15, 2025 at 6:37 AM
Quick check before I bow out: would you agree that calling Nazis “left-wing” because “socialist” was in the name is obviously nonsense? If so, you’ve just agreed that definitions matter more than labels; which is all I’ve been saying. Good day.
I didn’t say unclear definitions explain everything, or even most things. I said they matter, alongside material conditions. If that’s still being read as “insanely stupid”, there’s nothing productive left here. All the best.
December 15, 2025 at 6:24 AM
I didn’t say unclear definitions explain everything, or even most things. I said they matter, alongside material conditions. If that’s still being read as “insanely stupid”, there’s nothing productive left here. All the best.
I understand that concern, and I’m not denying fascists downplay what they are doing. My point has only ever been that loose use of the term makes that easier, not harder. I don’t think we’re going to bridge this here, so I’ll leave it there. All the best.
December 15, 2025 at 6:15 AM
I understand that concern, and I’m not denying fascists downplay what they are doing. My point has only ever been that loose use of the term makes that easier, not harder. I don’t think we’re going to bridge this here, so I’ll leave it there. All the best.
Language can change without losing clarity. If the UK is fascist, it would really help to spell out which institutions, structures or powers make it so. Otherwise we’re talking past each other. It’s a shame the tone’s become so hostile, so I’ll leave it there.
December 15, 2025 at 1:31 AM
Language can change without losing clarity. If the UK is fascist, it would really help to spell out which institutions, structures or powers make it so. Otherwise we’re talking past each other. It’s a shame the tone’s become so hostile, so I’ll leave it there.
I didn’t say this was the sole cause of what’s happening in the US. But the assault on constitutional norms there shows language and meaning aren’t trivial which makes the point less stupid than claimed. The hostility has all come from your side. I’ll leave it there.
December 15, 2025 at 1:19 AM
I didn’t say this was the sole cause of what’s happening in the US. But the assault on constitutional norms there shows language and meaning aren’t trivial which makes the point less stupid than claimed. The hostility has all come from your side. I’ll leave it there.
Rereading your reply, I think you’re closer to my point than you realise; you’re describing exactly what happens when terms are used loosely and collapse into accusation rather than analysis. Since you seem convinced I’m acting in bad faith, I’ll leave it there. All the best.
December 15, 2025 at 12:52 AM
Rereading your reply, I think you’re closer to my point than you realise; you’re describing exactly what happens when terms are used loosely and collapse into accusation rather than analysis. Since you seem convinced I’m acting in bad faith, I’ll leave it there. All the best.
And for the record, the mess in the US shows what happens when shared meanings are deliberately trashed. That’s how the game’s played. If you think that’s accidental, you’re being naïve.
December 14, 2025 at 9:28 PM
And for the record, the mess in the US shows what happens when shared meanings are deliberately trashed. That’s how the game’s played. If you think that’s accidental, you’re being naïve.
That analogy is inappropriate. Being precise about political terms is basic analysis. Equating insistence on definitions with attempts to minimise sexual abuse is a false and ugly analogy, and it does you no credit.
December 14, 2025 at 9:25 PM
That analogy is inappropriate. Being precise about political terms is basic analysis. Equating insistence on definitions with attempts to minimise sexual abuse is a false and ugly analogy, and it does you no credit.
🤣 I still can’t tell if that was friendly ribbing or a dig (both?!); maybe a generational mismatch. Either way, the notion that caring about definitions is a weakness is a bit alarming. When language gets that loose, meaning collapses; and we’re watching exactly where that leads in the US.
December 14, 2025 at 8:23 PM
🤣 I still can’t tell if that was friendly ribbing or a dig (both?!); maybe a generational mismatch. Either way, the notion that caring about definitions is a weakness is a bit alarming. When language gets that loose, meaning collapses; and we’re watching exactly where that leads in the US.
Calling me a “fascist apologist” for insisting on accurate definitions misses the lesson. Stretching “fascism” to mean anything you dislike is the same move as claiming Nazis were left-wing because “socialist” was in the name. It plays into bad-faith hands and makes you part of the problem.
December 14, 2025 at 6:57 PM
Calling me a “fascist apologist” for insisting on accurate definitions misses the lesson. Stretching “fascism” to mean anything you dislike is the same move as claiming Nazis were left-wing because “socialist” was in the name. It plays into bad-faith hands and makes you part of the problem.
I understand perfectly why you’re claiming I haven’t answered the question. I have, repeatedly and plainly; you just haven’t engaged with a single thing I’ve written. If you’re “sick of it”, that’s likely because reading and responding would require admitting how little you’ve grasped.
December 14, 2025 at 10:07 AM
I understand perfectly why you’re claiming I haven’t answered the question. I have, repeatedly and plainly; you just haven’t engaged with a single thing I’ve written. If you’re “sick of it”, that’s likely because reading and responding would require admitting how little you’ve grasped.
Anyone reading back through the thread can see the contrast for themselves: repeated, substantive answers on one side, and plainly immature, uninformed responses on the other. If this is the level of argument we’re relying on to confront actual fascism, we’re in serious trouble.
December 14, 2025 at 9:57 AM
Anyone reading back through the thread can see the contrast for themselves: repeated, substantive answers on one side, and plainly immature, uninformed responses on the other. If this is the level of argument we’re relying on to confront actual fascism, we’re in serious trouble.
I’ve answered the question repeatedly, clearly, and at length including why I’m critiquing Kav’s video. What’s telling is that you haven’t engaged once with what I’ve actually said, only with what you’d prefer I’d said. If you’re done reading, just say that but don’t pretend this is evasion.
December 14, 2025 at 9:53 AM
I’ve answered the question repeatedly, clearly, and at length including why I’m critiquing Kav’s video. What’s telling is that you haven’t engaged once with what I’ve actually said, only with what you’d prefer I’d said. If you’re done reading, just say that but don’t pretend this is evasion.
Saying it’s “apparent” I’ve never read a dictionary is almost impressive, given that the entire point I’ve been making is about definition. If that’s what you’ve taken from this, you’ve not just missed the lesson, you’ve demonstrated exactly why it was needed.
December 14, 2025 at 9:50 AM
Saying it’s “apparent” I’ve never read a dictionary is almost impressive, given that the entire point I’ve been making is about definition. If that’s what you’ve taken from this, you’ve not just missed the lesson, you’ve demonstrated exactly why it was needed.
This isn’t an argument, we’re defining a term. Fascism isn’t subjective. Saying “this exists under fascism” is not the same as saying “this is fascism”. Racism and repression long predate fascism and also occur in liberal states. If everything bad is fascism, the word stops meaning anything.
December 14, 2025 at 9:34 AM
This isn’t an argument, we’re defining a term. Fascism isn’t subjective. Saying “this exists under fascism” is not the same as saying “this is fascism”. Racism and repression long predate fascism and also occur in liberal states. If everything bad is fascism, the word stops meaning anything.
Now I know Merry Christmas in Welsh! Thanks!! 😊
December 13, 2025 at 5:51 PM
Now I know Merry Christmas in Welsh! Thanks!! 😊
I think we’re fundamentally allies here; opposed to occupation - mass suffering and impunity - even if we part ways on language. I’ve appreciated the substance of your earlier points. I don’t think this thread is going to take us anywhere useful now, so I’ll leave it there. Merry Christmas!!
December 13, 2025 at 5:38 PM
I think we’re fundamentally allies here; opposed to occupation - mass suffering and impunity - even if we part ways on language. I’ve appreciated the substance of your earlier points. I don’t think this thread is going to take us anywhere useful now, so I’ll leave it there. Merry Christmas!!
We’re talking past each other now. I’m not disputing the realities of occupation, disenfranchisement, or detention, those are real and indefensible. However calling everything “fascist” isn’t analysis, it’s sloganising. I’m interested in accountability for concrete harms, not escalating labels.
December 13, 2025 at 5:34 PM
We’re talking past each other now. I’m not disputing the realities of occupation, disenfranchisement, or detention, those are real and indefensible. However calling everything “fascist” isn’t analysis, it’s sloganising. I’m interested in accountability for concrete harms, not escalating labels.
That’s a bit disappointing, honestly your earlier points were much stronger. Israel is not a fascist state: it has competitive, free elections, opposition parties, and changes of government. You can condemn its actions - and I do - without misusing definitions. That’s not opinion, it’s just counting
December 13, 2025 at 5:20 PM
That’s a bit disappointing, honestly your earlier points were much stronger. Israel is not a fascist state: it has competitive, free elections, opposition parties, and changes of government. You can condemn its actions - and I do - without misusing definitions. That’s not opinion, it’s just counting
I’m not uncomfortable, I’m disagreeing. I’m not minimising the actions of the Netanyahu government, many of which are indefensible. But I’m not litigating labels. Collapsing everything into “fascist apologism” is rhetorical inflation, not precision. It weakens the case rather than strengthening it.
December 13, 2025 at 5:08 PM
I’m not uncomfortable, I’m disagreeing. I’m not minimising the actions of the Netanyahu government, many of which are indefensible. But I’m not litigating labels. Collapsing everything into “fascist apologism” is rhetorical inflation, not precision. It weakens the case rather than strengthening it.
I don’t disagree that Labour’s stance on Israel–Palestine is morally indefensible and has enabled serious crimes. My concern is precision: calling this “fascist apologism” muddies the critique. The argument is strongest when it sticks to concrete actions and harms.
December 13, 2025 at 4:36 PM
I don’t disagree that Labour’s stance on Israel–Palestine is morally indefensible and has enabled serious crimes. My concern is precision: calling this “fascist apologism” muddies the critique. The argument is strongest when it sticks to concrete actions and harms.
This argument is actually coherent, and I’m much more inclined to agree with it. It points to concrete policies and real harms which is a world away from a YouTube video just yelling “fascism” for clicks. This is how the case should be made.
December 13, 2025 at 4:11 PM
This argument is actually coherent, and I’m much more inclined to agree with it. It points to concrete policies and real harms which is a world away from a YouTube video just yelling “fascism” for clicks. This is how the case should be made.
It’s not about being taken in by a nice suit nor is it “sleepwalking”. It’s about not letting YouTube clickbait cry “fascism” at everything, including the daft claim that Labour are fascist apologists. This kind of ignorant non-analysis and semantic vandalism does more harm than good.
December 13, 2025 at 4:07 PM
It’s not about being taken in by a nice suit nor is it “sleepwalking”. It’s about not letting YouTube clickbait cry “fascism” at everything, including the daft claim that Labour are fascist apologists. This kind of ignorant non-analysis and semantic vandalism does more harm than good.