Oh no, I had a feeling that wasn’t the best terminology. I’ve offended the bees, haven’t I?

I am telling you, you can call yourself whatever you want. Your identity doesn’t matter to me, because you cannot trade away your human rights just by calling yourself some other species.

If you want to call me a fascist for saying that your human rights are inalienable and cannot be removed from you just because you call yourself a non-human, that is… incredibly misguided and makes me wonder if you even know what a fascist is.

To be honest, I’m inclined to think you are astroturfing, trying to make anyone standing up for human rights and against fascism look ridiculous.

Seriously, you are either totally detached from reality, or a right-wing bot account.

And yes, go for it, ban me from your instance with a total of 4 communities, 34 posts and 60 comments. My family group chat has more activity than that.

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.

Fascism is what you get when Aristocracy gets a business degree. The difference between a feudal lord and a CEO is non-farm income.

Far, far from it. Despite the casual use (including by me!) of aristocracy for any entrenched elite, there is a non-negligible difference between actual aristocrats and plutocrats. Long story short, aristocrats are dependent on social capital and extraordinary legal privileges; plutocrats are dependent on financial capital. The tension between these competing sources of elite power has fueled many pre-modern conflicts. The two can blend, and there’s rarely a ‘pure’ example of either, but they’re aren’t quite equivalent either. A majority-owner of a modern farming conglomerate does not base his power on the same foundation as a feudal lord, and vice-versa.

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.

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.

Literally talking like chat GPT.

“Fuck off, we’re not dealing with your bullshit” is a perfectly acceptable thing to say to fascists.

Having neither the desire or energy to “fix” everyone is fine – especially dirtbags that are looking for an argument in bad faith.

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.

My first reply to that user was a lot more aggressive, but I decided to tone it down and be more patient. My patience did not bear any fruit, but I’m glad I gave it an effort.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

that’s nearly the definition of fascism?

Yes, which is why they need to put this kind of disclaimer in their handbook — lest they end up with chuds like the Warhammer franchise. Those chuds being the ones that don’t understand that the Imperium is really bad.

But White Wolf VtM vampires aren’t.

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.

I firmly disagree. There is no meaningful difference in motivation or expected outcome. The behaviour is functionally identical. In neither case is there any commitment to compromise with society, both Aristocracy and Plutocracy leverage economic factors to control and contain the wider community, to arbitrary and capricious ends; frequently little more than the further consolidation of power. The terminology is different, it sounds different, but it does not behave different in any meaningful way. Any social contract is entirely grounded in what we choose to demand as a society, not intrinsic to the flavour of elite class.

It’s the same motive, the same tools, and the same outcome, just re-branded and with a fresh coat of paint. Plutocracy in this era leverages scientific and evidence based psychological conditioning, social control, and new communication mediums to play on a variety of fundamental cognitive biases and limitations instead of leveraging religion alone as the primary means of containment of the governed, nothing more. As I said, it’s Aristocracy with a business degree. If you want to get specific it’s Aristocracy with a business degree and a marketing team instead of just the clergy.

You can come discuss utilitarianism with the good creatures at !transspecies@lemmy.blahaj.zone

Oh I just made a spelling mistake and was trying it into a dumb joke