Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Is it the responsibility of a running clock to know the time that the stopped clock displays?

That is, I am not so worried that I'm a fascist that I'm going through the list, making sure that I share no points of intersection. I could have a point in common (syncretistic beliefs, say, or criticism of modernism) as part of a completely benign worldview. The fact that there is one point in common does not render my worldview fascistic or otherwise malignant. (In this, I am disagreeing with Eco, who said "But it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it.")

Now, the closer I get to all the points in common, the more concerning it is (and also the less likely I am to honestly do the comparison). But no, I'm not worried about "1/14 fascist"... at least not in myself, because I'm pretty sure my worldview is benign. (On the other hand, everybody thinks that...)

> at least not in myself

I'm not worried about HN users' ability to assess their own internal beliefs.

I am worried about HN users beginning and ending their self-reflection at a mere assessment of whether they think their intentions are good/benign/etc.

To go old school with your broken clock example-- if everyone's unset VCR eternally reads "12:00", you probably want to know whether the current time is exactly 12:00 when you try to convince a neighbor you programmed yours. (Well, theirs would blink, but you get the idea.)

It's a bigger deal when a benign belief intersects with the beliefs of neo-fascists or other asshole ideologies.

That may or may not require one to do anything in particular in response, depending on the context. But to not realize the intersections with asshole ideologies, or-- worse-- to actively resist caring (not saying you are, but that seems a growing pattern on social media)-- seems at best like electing to be a willing troglodyte in a complex world.

Edit: clarification

This is a thoughtful reply; thanks for it. I know that my framing is a sorites paradox, and won't have a tidy answer.

But maybe that's my point: Fascism is but one particular flavor of malicious totalitarianism, and totalitarianism can coagulate around a vast variety of beliefs across the political/religious/cultural spectra.

Studying the commonalities of particular flavors can be helpful, but it's tremendously unhelpful to whip out the list, check some boxes, and decide that someone is A Bad Person as a result.

I think it's at least as often used to decide that I am not A Bad Person...

What do you mean?

You said:

> Fascism is but one particular flavor of malicious totalitarianism, and totalitarianism can coagulate around a vast variety of beliefs across the political/religious/cultural spectra.

I can go through a list like that, make sure that I check none of the boxes, and decide that I am verifiably not A Bad Person. (As if the only kinds of badness are fitting Eco's fascism checklist.) Or that the movement I'm attracted to is verifiably not A Bad Movement.

(All that said, it's not a totally bad list, and it does cross over some between different flavors of politics. Even Antifa checks more boxes than they would be comfortable with, if they seriously considered it.)

Thanks for clarifying!

>isn't it your responsibility to know the intersection between your own personal beliefs and what's being used by, say, a neofascist movement in order to gain more followers?

I would say...no? Maybe in some cases, but I would think it rather unsustainable for humans in general to have to 1) keep records on what fringe elements believe and 2) be held accountable for people who share the same beliefs but also do things that are bad.

Taking on the responsibility to be clear about the context of one's positions doesn't mean one would be "held accountable" for people who share the same beliefs. To me it just means taking on the responsibility to be clear, especially if it's in the context of something that quite glaringly intersects with neo-fascist or even nihilistic sarcasm rhetoric which often has the opposite goal. Unfortunately, I don't think those are fringe beliefs at the moment.

The other problem-- a whole lotta people are getting used to the social media economy of impressions and attention-keeping. Since the most effective current methods have to do with divisive and controversial content, it sure seems like there are a lot of bloggers and podcasters who go out of their way not to clarify positions that may intersect with a lot of nasty ideologies.

So at least until we figure out a way for social media to be less socially destructive, I'm going to take it upon myself to carry around a heavy backpack of context for all my online utterances. Otherwise I'm just leaving things to various dark patterns and algos which I know are up to no good.