Appeal to authority does not constitute an argument. Your response continues to emphasize the perceived lack of a logical core in fascism, while also pointing out that this perspective is supported by a consensus among those who have studied the ideology. You need to dissect the nature of the argument you're presenting and the distinction between logical structure and ideological content. To effectively argue that fascism lacks a logical structure, provide specific examples of its internal inconsistencies or contradictions. Simply stating that experts agree with your view does not address the core question: What specific elements of fascist ideology lack logical coherence?

I am not aware of any experts who have studied this ideology and concluded that it lacks logical structure. If you maintain that such experts exist, could you please provide citations for their arguments along with the relevant sources? Assuming you reference these experts, you should be able to accurately cite their specific arguments and sources. So please provide precise citations relevant to the context of our discussion, along with the sources.

I will argue that you are still conflating between the ideological content of fascism and its logical structure. An ideology can be logically consistent in how its principles interconnect and support each other, even if those principles are based on fallacious premises or lead to unethical conclusions. The fascist emphasis on nationalism and authoritarian control logically leads to policies that suppress dissent and prioritize state power over individual rights. This is a LOGICAL progression of ideas within the framework of the ideology.

You assert that not everything with an "idea" is logical. While this is true, the logical coherence of an ideology is not just about having ideas but about how these ideas are systematically interconnected and rationalized within that ideology. Fascism has demonstrated a certain internal logic in how it articulates and rationalizes its principles, such as the belief that a strong authoritarian leader is necessary for national unity and that individual rights can be sacrificed for the greater good of the nation.

You mention that fascism is riddled with inconsistencies. If these inconsistencies disrupt the internal logic of the ideology, then please identify them.

So if you want to effectively argue that fascism lacks a logical structure, then go beyond stating the consensus of scholars (appeal to authority) and to specifically identify where the ideology fails to maintain logical consistency. Without these specifics, your thesis relies too heavily on an appeal to authority and a general dismissal of the ideology without addressing its internal logic.

> Appeal to authority does not constitute an argument. Your response continues to emphasize the perceived lack of a logical core in fascism, while also pointing out that this perspective is supported by a consensus among those who have studied the ideology.

Appeal to authority is only a fallacy when the authority is arbitrary, not when they are experts on the topic.

In any case, this has gone on long enough. I have nothing against you, I've explained my point, and I'm not going to give you a history lesson here, "explain" anything to you, or keep reading your walls of text. HN is not suitable for this.

Have a nice day!

Throughout this conversation, I have repeatedly requested specific arguments or evidence regarding the logical structure of fascism. These requests were made in the spirit of understanding and critically examining your viewpoint. Despite these requests, you have not provided concrete arguments or examples that directly address the logical structure of fascism, which was the core issue at hand.

> Appeal to authority is only a fallacy when the authority is arbitrary, not when they are experts on the topic.

Your responses emphasize a reliance on expert consensus without offering specific examples or references to support your stance. While it's true that an appeal to authority is not fallacious when the authority is relevant and credible, the essence of the argument still requires substantiation beyond just stating that experts agree with a viewpoint. Merely stating that experts agree with a position, without providing any direct references or examples is akin to saying "Trust me, I'm right because experts say so" rather than, "Here's the evidence or arguments presented by experts that support my view."

> In any case, this has gone on long enough. I have nothing against you, I've explained my point, and I'm not going to give you a history lesson here, "explain" anything to you, or keep reading your walls of text. HN is not suitable for this.

Stating that you won't provide a "history lesson" or implying that the other person's efforts constitute mere "walls of text" came across as dismissive and disrespectful.

If the conversation isn't aligning with your expectations, it might be more productive to articulate this directly and respectfully. You could say something like, "I appreciate the depth of your inquiry, but I feel that this platform isn't the right place for such an in-depth discussion, or I don't have the resources/time/depth of knowledge to provide the detailed response this topic deserves." instead of writing that you will not teach someone history or "explain" anything to that person.

> "I appreciate the depth of your inquiry, but I feel that this platform isn't the right place for such an in-depth discussion [...]"

So you basically want to converse with ChatGPT?