The problem in this case is a flamewar about what really is or isn't "fascist".
The fact that the vast majority of people are not calling the same things fascist as OP is, tells me this seems to be a quite controversial opinion.
The fact that the vast majority of people are not calling the same things fascist as OP is, tells me this seems to be a quite controversial opinion.
But at the same time, I don't hold that position passionately. Maybe it is fascism. It's not "blatant", but it's arguable.
Semantic arguments are never very interesting. It's more reasonable to simply argue that something is immoral - to argue the specifics of your disagreement - rather than to fight over whether a specific term applies, which would serve as emotional leverage for your argument due to its connections to historical atrocities. That's some kind of logical fallacy that I can't name.
You don't agree with my exact political views?! Then you are a fascist.
Also blatant fascism? By which definition? the OP article pretty much cites a single blog post as his evidence of DHH being a fascist; but never really defines fascism.
I get it DHH is not a very likeable guy, and a bit of a prick but calling him a fascist or taking childish jabs like calling Omarchy "vibecoded scripts on top of Arch" really removes a lot of credibility