Hah

It’s pretty fantastic. In 2020 (only just beginning my journey of recovery from a conservative upbringing), I decided I should understand what fascism actually was. I found that dictionary definitions were terribly imprecise but eventually found Eco’s essay. I understand there are other methods–of similar scholarly integrity–used to define fascism, but I have not spent the effort to find and compare these other works. It is my (uninterrogated assumption) vague understanding that Eco’s definition isn’t regarded as opinionated.

There’s also the point that a life sentence is wayy cheaper than a death sentence (according to some random guy who once mentioned it)

Hey look, feature 8 of Umberto Eco’s Ur Fascism!

… Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak. …

Eco does make a point of clarifying that the presence of absence of any single trait he has identified does not prove a thing is or isn’t fascist.

But in spite of this fuzziness, I think it is possible to outline a list of features that are typical of what I would like to call Ur-Fascism, or Eternal Fascism. These features cannot be organized into a system; many of them contradict each other, and are also typical of other kinds of despotism or fanaticism. But it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it.

(The full text of the feature I quoted above)

8. The followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies. When I was a boy I was taught to think of Englishmen as the five-meal people. They ate more frequently than the poor but sober Italians. Jews are rich and help each other through a secret web of mutual assistance. However, the followers must be convinced that they can overwhelm the enemies. Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak. Fascist governments are condemned to lose wars because they are constitutionally incapable of objectively evaluating the force of the enemy.

My friend is having some trouble too, could someone help me explain it to them?

(source for what I’m about to say: I vaguely remember basically a couple headlines)

I remember reading a statement from Lewinsky regarding that allegation. Something along the lines of her agreeing that, while she had for many years defended him and declared to anyone asking that their involvement was purely consensual, she didn’t really have the power to consent. I believe it was referenced how the enlightenment of the recent Me Too revelations had influenced her evolving understanding.

I get the same math… Seems fucky but… This is assuming the sum of centripetal acceleration and gravity at the peak of the loop is zero. It may be physically possible for a cat to learn to manage a loop with such velocity but I imagine a cat wouldn’t be able to maintain a stride through a zero-g portion of the loop the first time it tried it.

So, instead let’s throw an assumption that the cat must maintain at minimum sum of -1g at the maxima of the loop. That may be badly phrased, assuming the cat must have at minimum a net force of at least one g between it’s paws and the surface of the loop it was currently using to accelerate…

3.5 meters = 11.5 feet

Radius, so still a freaking 7 meter diameter loop feels incredible…

I read his final statement as an acknowledgement that “while this sucks, no shit I’m going to do it because cats are necessary for functional human habitation”

I use pelletized bedding instead of clumping litter. It’s still disgusting, it still tracks everywhere, it still needs to be cleaned but it smells less and it’s waayyy cheaper (that link is $7 for a 40lb bag of the stuff)