>His own cite of his comment about how there's a thin line between feminism and literally Voldemort is another good example. Yeah he's edited it and seems to be going for "it's just a joke bro", but if you live in the kind of bubble where you casually condemn the whole of "feminism" as an evil then you've probably got a weirdly fascistic friend group and/or auudience.

How can you honestly not see the delicious irony of this statement?

The specific people he was condemning in that essay really were pretty bad. Mostly a few women trying to advance a political agenda on an uncharitable reading of the other Scott and then a lot of men piling on in case it got them laid.

Plastic recycling is a scam indeed, see previous HN discussion:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24714880

I dislike that you call people dumb or facist because they made a different judgement than you did, in regards of the "Is Trump worse than campus authoritarianism". Other people are able to feel differently about things.

Well in the context of fascism one of those things is an authoritarian government leader that praised dictators and tried to take over the government and another is a paid activity that's voluntary.

If you want to make obviously dumb claims about fascists, you might get called out.

Perhaps you should articulate a well-defined definition of fascism and provide arguments for why you clasify someone as a fascist if you are going to criticize someone else whose viewpoint is dfferent. Calling out someone for 'obviously dumb' claims assumes a universal non-subjective definition at the very least. It's also a seriously lazy way to argue a point.

>I think I originally started reading his stuff because he had informed and humorous takedowns of some extremist libertarian/fascist ideas like neoreaction and dark enlightenment, but I guess to know that much about the topics probably is a reflection of the circles he's moving in.

So you read and liked stuff that confirmed your likely ideological priors, but you disliked stuff that questioned them.

Do you actually expect a less-partial observer to agree that the fault here is with Scott rather than you?