So, unsurprisingly, the rule keeps working.
Behold this person, who immediately asked for a sharp definition of fascist.
This is the kind of person you're ejecting before they create problems.
As close as I can tell from what little information I can glean, I don't think this person is a fascist, but he's definitely not someone I want in my spaces.
This is why it works.
Got one who decided to respond to the deeper explanation to talk down to me about we need the definition to be more explicit.
I'll reiterate: anyone questioning the rule "no f fascists" directly is going to be a problem. There are no "false positives" because the signal is "willing to argue with a no fascist policy" not "full throated fascists!."
If you haven't adopted a code of conduct yet, that's where you put examples of bad behavior. If you're worried about folks not picking up on the subtly of the trap, put that example there.
And while you should absolutely get community input on rules, some things need to be deal breakers. Protecting fascism is high up that list. Also, ban anyone who questions the value of having a code of conduct. See previous statements about being a drain on community management resources.
Nov 14, 2025, 10:15 PM@pathunstrom if you don't even know what "fascist" means, you don't get a say on who gets banned either =3
@pathunstrom That sure is a Just Asking Questions vibe
@pathunstrom It gets some self-proclaimed free-speech absolutist liberals too. But there's a relevant Disco Elysium quote.
Steban, the Student Communist - "[...] The only people who actually call themselves liberals are mouth-foaming reactionaries."
Echo Maker - "Basically indistinguishable from fascists. You'd need an x-ray machine to tell the difference."
@pathunstrom god I wish that question of "definition" had a useful answer. Life would be a hell of a lot easier
@jan_leila
There are resources if you want to get on the more academic side of things. Like, the classic, Umberto Eco's Ur-Fascism, or Jason Stanley's How Fascism Works. Or any philosophical essay on those.
Yet on the internet you need CQC-philosophy. To which an excellent tool is the Popper's Paradox. And the usage is same and simple as above: they fail PP and you ban them, or they question PP, you link the comic or the meme »
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur-Fascism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_Fascism_Works
@jan_leila
« about PP in social contract terms, and your choice of ban, mute, or other applicable actions.
@pathunstrom the poínt is that someone might have a skewed definition in the same way some people would call anarchists fascists
and then when its a large group who knows what the person enforcing thinks.
its better to spend the effort and write what you dont want more explicitly
Nov 19, 2025, 11:19 AM@pathunstrom omfg this is brilliant and super effective, just awesome ✨🤜🏼😹
@pathunstrom
https://youtu.be/IKICKcMU3MU
I love the line from this classic - "why the fuck are you a voluntary Nazi Safety Advocate? That's a funny thing to be concerned about, the wellbeing of hypothetical Nazis"
@pathunstrom also 1 week time outs for people trying to argue or reason with or mansplain fascism to the fascists, like that's ever worked
Apr 16, 2026, 11:00 PM@pathunstrom
(this was just boosted and that's why i'm responding)
i'm neurodivergent and vaguely defined rules are kinda uncomfortable for me. i'm pretty sure they are much more uncomfortable for some more autistic people.
while i believe i understand what fascism is quite well - and am deeply antifascist - i wouldn't immediately assume someone is an apologist just for asking. definitely a sign to be suspicious tho.
@pathunstrom Thanks for this, and for the screenshot alt text. While on the latter point, you have a typo there: "p3pa" should be "p4pa".
@pauamma fixed, thanks for calling attention!
Also, this thread seems to bear out the principle that skeletal profiles are suspect, as well.