Okay, I’ll give you that something being debatable does not make it subjective.

The objective correctness of Marxism is debatable, as has been done for decades now, by definition making it subjective.

I took a better look at it. I understand that the definition of fascism is an academic question that has been discussed about a lot. However, that also means you shouldn’t just trust one person that researched it. The text explicitly states that (paraphrasing) “it should be looked at from the left”, which is just a confession of the definition being pretty biased. Therefor, the claim in the text about (paraphrasing) “his definition becoming the new consensus” is pretty flawed. It is true the word is getting used more and more like this by leftists, but that doesn’t make it a consensus.

In one paragraph he says (paraphrasing) “the specific flavor is not important, the inherent ideology is ultranationalism with wanting to go back to a mythological past”.

I reject this. What he is describing is literally just ultranationalism/ethno-nationalism. That’s literally how he describes it himself. That’s just like me saying "yeah stalinism in today’s day and age is very impractical and you won’t see it like this today, so in order to be able to use the term, we need to look at it broader, and at it’s core, their ideology is ultra-socialist with the focus on rapid industrialization. Therefor, we should call social-democracts stalinists, because they share the same core ideology.

Wtf? If you read that with some critical thinking you’ll understand why his definition is not the concensus at all.

You can’t just pick and choose definitions of a word. When you use a word, the most common definition of it is how you will be understood (depending on context). Otherwise I could say that poop is worth a lot and then say that poop means gold.

Moreover, sadly, many people do not even have the slightest idea of what certain ideologies are called. They don’t get further than “fascism bad nazi bad communism bad” without being able to make a distinction. This allows for easy manipulation of the masses by defaming anything you don’t like as one of these things. That’s all it is.

If you use a word that you don’t entirely understand, research the word, and if necessary, explain how you understand the word. Allows for good-fath discussions. Do not misrepresent it.

for far worse political views.

Opinion.

Not saying I don’t agree with you, just be aware that’s just your opinion.

None (or at least the superminority) of the people you mentioned celebrate the deaths of people.

You are.

I don’t know what your definition is of a “death cult”, but from all the people that would be in a death cult, you seem to be the only one qualifying:

I celebrate the death […]

That statement is all that is necessary to qualify being in a death cult.

I tolerate you and don’t hate you, I won’t block you or anything. But I will ignore you from this comment onwards, because I am not going to waste any more attention on a death cultist.

Death cults are intolerable.

You celebrate someone’s death. You are lucky I don’t go by your statement.

Firstly, I didn’t say I was, secondly, I don’t agree with you, thirdly, I don’t care what you think.

I can see where you’re coming from, as I mentioned, Turkey isn’t the best example of a democracy, but even now Erdogan can still get removed by a majority of the population, which is not the case in a dictatorship. A dictator can only be removed by the military.

I disagree with the last sentence, the definition of fascism is pretty clear, it is an ideology with certain beliefs and opinions. Not a process, not a form of government, but a set of ideas. If the set of ideas is not complete, it is not that ideology. I already gave you the name of the ideology you were describing.

It is like describing something socialist as stalinist. Like yeah, stalinists are socialists but not every socialist is a stalinist.

If I’m a buddy with a Muslim, while I’m Christian, what does the fact he is Muslim have to do with me?

What does Andrew Tate have to do with Christian values?

In a democracy you just require a (super)majority for everything necessary to be changed and done to achieve anything.

It is of course easier in a dictatorship to achieve ethnic cleansing, but doesn’t require one. Look at Turkey and how they treat the Kurds. Not saying they are the best example of a democracy, but it isn’t a dictatorship by definition.

He was praying to Allah when he was imprisoned in Romania is what I recollect.

Edit: yup, he converted to Islam in 2022 and there has been no sign of him converting back to Christianity or atheism.

Why are you talking about Republican Christian values if Andrew Tate converted to Islam? At least, that’s what I understood.

Anybody interested in the full filing, here you go: https://stream-ai.s3.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/class-action-complaints/6-25-26/Garciaguirre_et_al_v_Samsung_Electronics_Co_Ltd_et__candce-26-06345__0001.0.pdf

Anybody that is interested in the full filing of the complaint, here you go: https://stream-ai.s3.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/class-action-complaints/6-25-26/Garciaguirre_et_al_v_Samsung_Electronics_Co_Ltd_et__candce-26-06345__0001.0.pdf

Fascism requires support for an authoritarian dictatorship, among other stances. It is not purely “about racial and national purity and hierarchy”. That’s ethno-nationalism. Yes, fascists are ethno-nationalists, but not every ethno-nationalist is a fascist.