Checklists are absolutely important, as one can compare various governments across those metrics. And those can be seen as a percentage as to compare scientifically.
You added 'final say what fascism is' to create a controversy where there is none. That was never the claim. This was a set of commonalities of previous historical fascist governments.
And you add in an ad hominem to Political scientist Dr. Lawrence Britt. His study is in this realm, giving proper credence as an evidentiary start of analyzing fascism.
And yes, the abbreviated list I copied and pasted pales into comparison to the source. But I find many on HN dont bother to read linked articles, and instead create strawmen of the copied text. After reading tge posts so far, well, point made.
Checklists are good, including in public discourse. A 14-point list where every item is ambiguous, is not.
It’s not useless per se. Just insufficient as a consistent definition.
> you add in an ad hominem to Political scientist Dr. Lawrence Britt
Literally don’t. (Ad hominem would be me saying I hate Dr. Britt and rejecting his checklist on that basis.)
Saying I reject Britt as a final authority on a topic I don’t believe we have any final authority on yet is very different from rejecting them in any capacity.
You added 'final say what fascism is' to create a controversy where there is none. That was never the claim. This was a set of commonalities of previous historical fascist governments.
And you add in an ad hominem to Political scientist Dr. Lawrence Britt. His study is in this realm, giving proper credence as an evidentiary start of analyzing fascism.
And yes, the abbreviated list I copied and pasted pales into comparison to the source. But I find many on HN dont bother to read linked articles, and instead create strawmen of the copied text. After reading tge posts so far, well, point made.