I apologise for the aggressive tone of My first reply to you, and will now attempt a more measured response:

We’re talking about fantasy creatures and their equality with humans. I’m a fantasy creature. Denigrating other inhumans is a very slippery slope to denigrating inhuman creatures like Me. I and other members of the otherkin community would prefer to know that you’re an ally.

Yes, but I believe you should have either phrased this nice enough to actually affect people or much more aggressive and definitive instead of this rather diplomatic statement.

I think treating inhumanity as horror is pretty fascist. I’m in love with a very sweet monster who hates Nazis, and I’m a big fan of Guillermo del Toro’s movies where humans tend to be more evil than monsters.

In My experience VTM players trend fascist because the game encourages you to accept the Camarilla’s fascist idolisation of humanity.

Literally talking like chat GPT.

Inhumanity meaning the opposite of humane – in fact it used to be spelled inhumane. I.e. “cruel”.

Strangely enough it doesn’t have the “not a human” meaning inhuman does, but English is weird.

In principle you are correct, in practice the functional difference is very much negligible. As anyone who has ever tried to hold a plutocrat accountable in court can tell you, their equality under the law is more theoretical than how the world really works. The cults of personality, the careful reputational management, the nepotism and cronyism, dynastic rule and insularity, it’s all there, it’s just got a different window dressing.

On paper their power is different. In practice, not so much.

As anyone who has ever tried to hold a plutocrat accountable in court can tell you, their equality under the law is more theoretical than how the world really works.

That’s not the point being made by the legal distinction. The point is not that a plutocracy is vulnerable to the rule of law while an aristocracy is not - the question of the strength of rule of law is separate from the question of aristocracy or plutocracy. The point is that the basis of aristocratic power comes (in part) from a position of extraordinary legal privilege, not simply being able to escape consequences for crimes.

The cults of personality, the careful reputational management, the nepotism and cronyism, dynastic rule and insularity, it’s all there, it’s just got a different window dressing.

What you’re complaining about ere can be applied to any elite.

That’s because we speak a language designed by human supremacists.

The point is that the basis of aristocratic power comes (in part) from a position of extraordinary legal privilege, not simply being able to escape consequences for crimes.

We’re so very close but we’re not quite getting that last point. What I’m saying is it’s a distinction with very little meaningful difference. It’s interesting from an academic point of view, but that’s it. How they rationalize their privilege and sell their legitimacy to people makes no difference.

On the one hand, good on them for trying a “nazi punks fuck off” type move.

On the other hand, a blood sucking aristocracy that feeds off the “lesser people” beneath them as the protagonists… that’s nearly the definition of fascism?

I mean, they’re fictional, they can be whatever you want them to be

It’s more than just academic. The question is not whether aristocracy or plutocracy acts in a fundamentally better or worse way than the other, which you seem to be focused on, but whether they act in a different way from the other, which they very much do. The basis of their power comes from different roots, and because of that, they have different interests, different goals, different avenues of action, different preferences in compromise with wider society. Failing to understand that will result in failing to understand the reasoning for political maneuvering by one or the other.

True, but in fairness I tried to discuss utilitarianism with my cat over dinner and his response was trying to steal food off my plate.

Which in hindsight could have actually been a rather profound commentary on the pursuit of happiness in a utilitarian framework.

I’m not offended, if that’s what you mean. I’m just curious what it means because I haven’t seen it before and can only guess.

Yes and no. Aristocracy can exist independent from fascism, and should be considered entirely separately. However, if they can’t maintain power with a purely conservative/reactionary coalition, aristocrats will almost always side with fascists over liberals, much less socialists. As such, in the modern day, aristocracies are aligned with fascists, despite fascism erasing aristocracy as it ‘succeeds’ and aristocrats being generally aware that fascists do not have their aristocratic interests in mind.

Good on them for stating it upfront though. (The mention of “alt-right” indicates a more recent version?).

Back in the 90’s/early 00’s it definitely attracted people both left and right winged.

However from my personal experience right wingers was more prevalent in wargaming compared to rpg’s. (Which really sucked because there you were enjoying a nice back n forth about Warhammer and then out comes the racist nazi talk…)

Games Workshop did good by making a pretty strong statement a while ago. But I’m afraid it’ll always be a thing.

the problem is that they have no media literacy (well, barely any literacy at all) so the satirical nature of Warhammer goes far over their head and they instead unironically think the politics in the game are based.

Oh absolutely, it’s just that the modern day aristocrats of capitalism are so short sighted they can’t see past their own nose.

They don’t know that their own wealth is meaningless since rule of law is not theirs, and no one will care if they get epstiened like many Russian oligarchs.

“First they came” and all that

There is a difference between aristocracy and oligarchy. Aristocracy is under the thumb of the monarch, oligarchy isn’t.