cool

Yeah definitely, not wanting to do x is definitely the same as not knowing how to do x

Whatever definition i provide, you're still going to disagree with it, so there's no point

well, it sounds like you have an extremely liberal view of what fascism is and just consider it "totalitarian ultra nationalism" or something

of course, this is an educated assumption

so if you actually do know what you are talking about, please provide your definition

Lmao what the fuck is an "educated assumption"

Assumptions are arbitrary by definition

there are assumptions and there are estimates

if ur estimating provide the standards from which ur extrapolating from

nice moving the conversation when you realise you tried to argue something you have no clue about. if you truly think my position is wrong then please provide your definition of fascism and explain how organicism isnt inherent in the ontology

Its not moving the conversation, u just started making retarded unsubstantiated assumptions

and i called you out on it

I see this conversation is going nowhere as debating definitions is fucking useless and boring

if my assumption was wrong then prove it lmao

my advice is for next time you find yourself backed into a corner like this, dont try to argue things you have no clue about/havent read any theory on in the first place

that's not how burden of proof works buddy

if u assert x, the burden is on you to justify X, not on me to disprove x

lmao you havent backed me into a corner, i just saw that this isnt going anywhere, and i remembered that debating definitions is useless, thus im trying to stop the conversation

This is a wall of shit

ive provided my reasoning for my assertion, organicism is inherent in Gentile's doctrine, a key part of this doctrine is that it rejects humanistic materialism in favour of hierarchy and Organicism and spiritualism. you are correct on one thing, fascism will vary depending on the movement/nation. Codreanu advocated for the church to be the centre of the nation. however this does not change its **inherent ontology**

The Iron Guard were Reactionary

Italian Fascism was Revolutionary

National Socialism was a bit paradoxically but was ultimately Revolutionary

Alright since you dont know what "im trying to stop the conversation" means, here let me put it this way, shut the fuck up already

ofvo's guide on debating

1. provide argument
2. if person refutes this argument provide no meaningful rebuttal with reference to theory and instead say "different variants bro"
3. when person realises that you cant even define the thing you are talking about, and asks for your definition, simply say "no"
4. disguise this as you just not wanting to engage
5. tell person to provide proof of their assertion
6. when person presents a well reasoned argument, tell them to "shut the fuck up"

The key factors from any type of Third Position notice I’m not saying Fascism. Is core values, Idealism, Romanticism fused with Futurism to a degree, Vanguardism with Populism, Pragmatic Conservatism in the social cultural sphere, along with Corporate economics ie Guilds, state unions, bureaus or syndicates running the economy. Obviously some policy will be different. Maoism wast the same as Russian Marxist Leninism lol

Embracing technology ie modernity

Fuck the past

no one is saying all fascist movements are the same, while they arise differently and advocate for different policies to a degree their inherent ontology remains the same. Maoism and Marxism-Leninism still had the same fundamental philosophies (dialectical materialism, economic determinism etc)

@Sentient23 change your picture to a smooth brain

Lmao that's so disingenuopus eno and you fucking know it

@Eno the guy I just tagged did

You can check <#587029563863990282> where I've debated people before, and in <#587028275918929925> a few times as well. I stay away from semantic debates. That simple

If you wanna debate on something meaningful that doesn't orient around debating definitions, tag me

@Sentient23 you told me i had the burden of proof, i provided an argument for my assertion. you clearly have nothing to argue against it so you are backing out

again, my advice is to not engage in these debates in the first place if you havent read the necessary theory

Oh you provided an argument? Please quote yourself where you substantiated your "educated assumption"

So many assumptions AGAIN

my assumption was based on you not recognising that fascism is an ontology

Please provide an argument as to why i haven't read theory

because you think organicism isnt inherent in fascism

so you obviously havent read Gentile