Oh, the historical fascisms such as under Stalin and Pol Pot, right.
it’s in principle undetermined in ideology
Correct in so far, as it‘s determined by economic system. Which happens to align with left/right ideology.
But the only principles really important for any kind of fascism are violence, anti-rationalism and amorphous ideology.
You’re making shit up depending on how your tummy feels, don‘t you?
Please stop using the internet.
I do this regularly. The „unfortunately“ part is not something I am willing to take ownership of and see it as a weakness of the platform. I also tend to be controversial in .world communities and I detest software that‘s trying to force me to behave in certain ways that are neither transparent, nor neutral in their judgment of my commentary.
That’s the same for up- and downvote balance. it’s bullshit. be it attitude or reputation.
Why am I forced to have certain voting patterns in order to be accepted as a trustworthy community member? That‘s arbitrarily authoritarian in order to subdue deviant behaviour without good reason or explanation before engaging in said community, which ux design displays up- and downvoting in the same manner? I‘m not being warned of such consequences for this arbitrary branding rule. Is excessive upvoting branded, as well? If so, in which way? If not, why not? It‘s dumb, that‘s what I‘m getting at.
Dunno man, I‘ve got the double red triangle exclamation mark for „very low reputation“. Certainly it „warns“ unsuspecting people and I had already at least one commenter, that mistrusted my commentary just for that. Cool. Cool, cool.
Don‘t have an account — do I also have an attitude, it doesn‘t show any publically?
Either way, branding users like that, intransparently, by machine logic, I certainly am not convinced.
I would have been more impressed, if you‘d actually provided argumentative content instead of personal attacks.
Not sure, what you used Umberto Eco‘s definition for, but it wasn‘t to formulate a coherent thought on the topic.