That's obviously a problem when your Führer is 80+ years old and overweight.
It means the Führer will try and fix everything as soon as possible.
But fight they will because he will fully become a chatbot. FIRST DECEASED LEADER.
The Hallucinating ChatGPT Presidency[0]
Tue, Apr 29th 2025 09:34am - Mike Masnick
> We generally understand how LLM hallucinations work. An AI model tries to generate what seems like a plausible response to whatever you ask it, drawing on its training data to construct something that sounds right. The actual truth of the response is, at best, a secondary consideration.
> But over the last few months, it has occurred to me that, for all the hype about generative AI systems “hallucinating,” we pay much less attention to the fact that the current President does the same thing, nearly every day. The more you look at the way Donald Trump spews utter nonsense answers to questions, the more you begin to recognize a clear pattern — he answers questions in a manner quite similar to early versions of ChatGPT. The facts don’t matter, the language choices are a mess, but they are all designed to present a plausible-sounding answer to the question, based on no actual knowledge, nor any concern for whether or not the underlying facts are accurate.
> This is not the response of someone working from actual knowledge or policy understanding. Instead, it’s precisely how an LLM operates: taking a prompt (the question about job losses) and generating text based on some core parameters (the “system prompt” that requires deflecting blame and asserting greatness).
> The hallmarks of AI generation are all here
• Confident assertions without factual backing
• Meandering diversions that maintain loose semantic connection to the topic
• Pattern-matching to previous responses (“ripped off,” “billions of dollars”)
• Optimization for what sounds good rather than what’s true
I know its a healthy part of democracy but it is very draining.
The ball is rolling. Action against media organizations is already underway. You already couldn't publish this message via CBS, WSJ or the Post, for example. They likely wouldn't even interview the author.
But yeah, it takes time, censorship is hard in practice, and random substacks are fairly far down the list.
But pretending that this is a "healthy" democracy at this point is pretty strained reasoning.
... You know we have people getting thrown in camps and deported for saying maybe genocide is bad, right? And like, students and faculty in Ivy league schools getting beaten and/or fired for saying maybe we shouldn't be complicit in the mass murder of children?
Apologies if I've misread your remarks - deep and biting sarcasm doesn't always play well in text.
Did you know Germany has really fascist laws on regarding displaying Nazi symbols even more than the US? You can get deported for it!
In China you can disappear talking about Taiwan, In the UAE you can by saying something anti Islam. There is a long way to go until you reach real bad places...
You obviously do not like the USA, but just because you do not like it does not mean its fascist... its just clearly not perfect and free enough for you to be able to point it out.
Are people being thrown in camps for what they say? Are they being gunned down in broad daylight in the street for peaceful protest? ... If so, maybe my disagreement is backed up by facts. And maybe "it can get worse" isn't pulling much weight here.
Right now we have a ~100% pro genocide party, and a roughly 90% pro genocide party. That's... not a good sign bro.
> Did you know Germany has really fascist laws on regarding displaying Nazi symbols even more than the US? You can get deported for it!
Did you know every day there's a new video of German police brutalizing peaceful protesters? Or that they're a major arms supplier to Israel; second only to the US?
> In China you can disappear talking about Taiwan
Citation needed. Let's compare people disappearing per capita too. Let's talk about the Epstein files, lots of people disappearing there.
> In the UAE you can by saying something anti Islam.
If your argument is that we're not the UAE, then buddy... What?
> There is a long way to go until you reach real bad places...
Oh America can fall very far from where it is, for sure. That's not what we're talking about though.
> You obviously do not like the USA
It's not about me, or my likes (freedom, truth, liberty, equality - the things the US says it's all about) and dislikes (genocide, forever wars, deportations, coups, extortion, blackmail, people getting shot in the back in the street - the things the US is actually doing).
This conversation is about fascism, and how the US is ticking every single box for it. You are claiming the US isn't fascist, as if that were just my opinion; but you're not engaging with any of the actual facts in the article, or any particular points about fascism, just claiming that people are free to critisize therefore we can't possiblybe fascist. Which is manifestly untrue from any number of angles.
If you like, we can also discuss how this community, the tech bros and venture capitalists, the DOGE cheerleaders and the Thielites, are deeply complicit in that fascism, and profiting from it.
> its just clearly not perfect and free enough for you to be able to point it out.
"Sure, we arm and enable genocide, but you're free to point that out as long as you don't mind the possibility of being thrown in a camp, shot, treated as a terrorist, deported, etc - because we're not the UAE"... I'm not sure those arguments are as strong as you seem to think they are.
The problems extend well beyond one party (see: Citizen United), but to me, the "fascism"-ish stuff is mostly concentrated on one end. It has been clear for a long time that the Republican Party has embraced the "illiberal democracy" model of Viktor Orbán. Orbán's government never got to the full-on violent oppression used in actual autocracies, but instead used many of the tools that the Republican party uses today to attempt to stay in power. That being: gerrymandering and other aggressive vote meddling; media manipulation (not full on censorship, but attempting to ensure that dominant media voices were party line); propaganda using social / culture war rhetoric; and government pressure on institutions (schools, businesses, etc.) to destroy independence, and force conformity to the party line.
There are differences between the two -- Orbán never attempted anything like ICE or the immigrant detention camps, but Orbán was able to capture the judiciary better than Republicans have so far. But it's the closet comparison I can think of.
Some of the characteristics of the "Orbán style" do share some similarities with fascism... however the "Orbán style" lacks classic fascism (along with the more direct cousin of "the Vladimir Putin style")'s full on authoritarianism. But as the above demonstrates, there isn't a term right now that neatly encapsulates hybrid governments at the moment, so I guess that is why folks are running with the term everyone knows. Besides, there is always the danger of a hybrid regime backsliding into an authoritarian regime. Russia, who many do see as a modern flavor of authoritarian fascism at present, was rated as a "hybrid regime" in The Economist in 2006.
This. One of the characteristics of modern transitions into fascism seems to be intentionally avoiding and subverting the antibodies democratic states have developed to curb authoritarianism, to wit all of the actions you mentioned above.
Grey warfare against democracy is real.
Charitably, its practitioners probably think of it as "playing politics hard", but if the outcome of a course of action is eroding democratic norms then we (the people) need to be harsher in our appraisal of it. Anti-democratic forces know exactly what they're doing, even if they don't admit it publicly.
What's more worrisome is constituting a credibly alternative to MAGA+conservatism in the US that can:
1. Win elections
2. Avoid overly alienating the current MAGA+conservative supporters (to the extent they reject democracy)
3. Restore and reinforce democratic norms and laws
- Clarence Thomas 78
- Samuel Alito 76
- Sonia Sotomayor 72
- John G. Roberts Jr. 71
Who controls the presidency and senate is going to matter a lot, in terms of unfucking the unbalanced court that Ginsberg's egotistical refusal to retire created.
There is still hope for the US. The press is still critical, the opposition is not arrested, the courts are still giving push back, and it's not civil war level violence.
Trump’s response to that landslide will tell us whether there’s hope.
I don’t expect Civil War levels of violence because the country is mostly united in its hatred of how the GOP is running it. No large group of people will pick up arms to support Trump’s right to invade countries and ruin the economy.
I agree with the premise of the article wholeheartedly. Minor nitpick:
> The German dynasties behind Porsche, Volkswagen and BMW pretty much merged with the Nazi regeime.
Volkswagen was founded by the Nazi regime after they have already taken over. While support by car companies was relevant, there were far more important supporters of the war effort in the chemical and steel industry.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/02/28/who-likes...
Once you get that group control is when you have problems.
This is kind of an interesting deeper dive into why people support fascism. Maybe not surprising but highlights the two main reasons: something like "we need a strong leader to take control of the government away from corrupt elite and put it back into the hands of the people" and "the government needs to be in the hands of the real, true, competent people, and not the other, fake, lesser people".
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/political-science/artic...
Personally I'm past the point of "what does fascism look like" and want to have a realistic discussion about "how do you reestablish a democracy when you're in a fascist regime?" So far the historical examples at my fingertips are all basically some variant of "people get tired of it, the cult leader passes away and everyone kind of magically agrees that fascism isn't working".
https://www.psypost.org/authoritarian-attitudes-linked-to-al...
Also, don't get the [flagged]. For what it's worth: Rutger Bregman is a historian and best-selling writer from the Netherlands. While you don't have to agree with everything he says most is thought provoking at least.
A critical but empathetic look at how fascism rises and spreads through, and alongside, ordinary people in ordinary society. Excellent book, incredibly relevant.
An excerpt, if you don't want to commit to the whole thing: https://press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/511928.html
1. Germans back then were conformist people and following other Germans; especially authority figures. Americans are anything but.
2. Germans did not know what was going on; today there is a ton of media.
3. Nazi party took care of the “good” Germans: Nazis gave Germans jobs (anyone else, Jews, Romas, communists had to fend for themselves). Trump and his goons openly shit on American people.
4. It took about 8 years from boycotting Jewish businesses to burning synagogues, then another 2 years to start implementing the Final solution. Trump’s goons shot and killed Americans less than 1 year since taking power.
(Also important is that Adolf Hitler became chancellor at 44 years old, Trump’s most consequential presidency started when he was 79.)
Similarities to today’s situation that I got from the book are charisma both Hitler and Trump have, and how people seem to identify themselves with Hitler and Trump (for ex: which other American president had people put his name on flags, tattoos, cars, houses?)
Freedom is fragile and needs constant support. Trump touched a raw nerve but he is too vain, greedy and old to follow through with a full blown dictatorship. The goons around him are dangerous but lack his charisma and connection to the average person (do you see JD Vance filling up stadiums while spouting non-sense?)
It only takes a small minority of violent thugs to make a bigger population of people who only want to stay out of trouble compliant.
As a non-American, the only thing I could probably argue against in good faith with enough context is Point 2.
I took from the 10 stories that everybody knew what was happening, and still nobody did anything (with one exception after-the-fact). The media today is certainly broadcasting what is happening, but I'm not sure it's actually solving the "let's do something about it" problem.
After all the book starts with the synagogue burning in 1938.
This is very different from what is going on in the US where people are very much aware of ICE abuses from the very start.
The 10 people in the book did see Jews leaving their cities, but they did not think much of it. One of the 10 people said something to the effect of : “yeah, probably it was not easy for them to leave. But it was not easy for me either when I was unemployed”. I got the impression those 10 people did not really like the Jews (they certainly had their prejudices against them) but they did not hate them either (in some cases they visited each other houses and sometimes they traded with each other)
Reading the guidelines I can't see how this is off-topic or does _not_ "[gratify] one's intellectual curiosity."
Edit: spelling
The story was flagged by many users. The problem with articles like this is the discussions are repetitive and predictable. We rarely see anyone approaching them with genuine curiosity. The topic of whether this president and administration are befitting of particular labels and historical analogies has been continually discussed (in broader society and on HN) since about 2015. And in the discussions we generally just see people trying to justify why they believe what they already believed about the topic, sometimes quite belligerently.
This is why discussions about politics are generally bad on online forums (and considered to be best avoided at dinner parties); it’s a domain in which people’s belief about the topic is deeply entangled with their identity, and by definition, people get defensive and hostile when their identity is thrown into question. Thus, they work much harder to justify why they were already right about the topic, instead of seeking to learn anything new.
The kind of politics discussion that would be good to see much more of on HN would explore the question: if we were to agree that the state of politics globally is terrible (I certainly do), what actions can ordinary people like us working in technology do to make things better?
Yes that is technically against the guidelines, no, they don't care, nor will they stop.
Welcome to Hacker News. Blood in the streets doesn't spark curious conversation so let's talk about compilers!
Probably for the better. Otherwise it quickly becomes politics all day everyday. There are plenty of other places where you can get that already.
Politics every day, sadly, says something about the times we're living in. We probably could have blissfully ignored politics in the early days of the internet—hopefully can again some day…
No, it doesn't. This is one of Hacker News' weird phobias but it doesn't reflect reality. I know the mods believe it too so there's no point in debating it but even Reddit isn't politics all day every day. The nature of the community here is a self-correcting mechanism. This thread is not a flamewar, the posted article isn't low quality (certainly not on a forum where posting Twitter posts and Wikipedia articles is allowed,) and it poses literally no threat to the community, but HN still treats it like a cancer.
And the main reason that stopped is that a bunch of his party members ran off and started a new party.
As a reaction voters became more extreme. The FvD (forum for democracy) is making big strides forward and they lack the (very few) positive qualities the PVV did have. PVV was anti-violence and pro-democracy. Oh, and FvD is anti-democracy in the sense of they're against "1 person 1 vote", and looking for ways to limit who can vote (and going to lengths that Trump and Republicans are not even daring to mention (yet?)
: Former prime minister Schoof was was not* a fascist, but basically just an independent bureaucrat hired to attempt to hold a very brittle coalition together. He failed at that miserably. Also, the 'main reason that stopped' was that the PVV party went from 23% of the votes to 17% of the votes in the next election, and none of the other parties was willing to work with them again in a coalition.
But then again, most of politics is corrupt.
You really are voting for the lesser of two evils, in that, the choices you're given are all actually evil, no matter what party, platform, or side of the aisle you're dealing with.
I think Donald Trump is especially popular though because of bad handling of immigration in the USA, and any politician that is serious about dealing with waves of immigration in the same way in Western countries has the ability to take advantage of a similar trend.
In other words...
...90% of illegal immigrants are probably genuinely seeking a better life or even desperate for it, but then you have demographics such as devout Islamist populations, criminals / bad actors who take advantage of, and the fact that if people can flood across borders, it seems that they will.
And then border towns in whatever country will bear the brunt of the issues that causes, or you will have literal replacement and a huge uptick in violent crime like what's happening in the UK...
...not to mention local citizens and legal immigrants tend to notice that illegal denizens get a fast track toward government benefits and legal protections they themselves have not and do not receive.
Now, are Donald Trump and those like him bad? At best they are a step backward due to real and serious policy failures by more "Left" politicians, and at worst they are just as awful, but a realistic backlash, according to Horseshoe theory, that extremes on different ends of a spectrum wind up being functionally the same, for example, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and the Soviet Union during World War II and the Cold War, despite having arguably antithetical ideological beliefs.
In the USA too, its worth pointing out that our Democrat party is heavily influenced by hardcore leftists, that is, not reasonable people who want high tech trains, better healthcare, and a strong social safety net, but rather people who literally are alright with items like transgender "medicine" and pornography for young children, rioting, and think terrorists are justified openly calling for rape and murder.
I think its worth pointing out too that actual historical fascism is openly violent, xenophobic, war-positive, genocidal, and eugenic.
I really don't like Donald Trump, but I would describe him as a moderately right populist that isn't a complete idiot when it comes to dealing with real problems, which is perhaps what makes him dangerous, is that he actually is correct on certain prominent issues, and again, just as antichrist as most politicians, which generates a fair amount of detached cynicism within me.
I'm one of those people too that sort of thinks that a lot of differences between Left-and-Right or Conservative vs. Liberal actually collapse into nothing on a lot of simple problems, for example, gun rights, healthcare, border security, and that a lot of it is just meant to divide us.
For example, why shouldn't we trust private, law-abiding citizens with guns after they take a one-day or two-day class in safety, have laws that prevent someone from buying weapons during a day long random bi-polar episode, and have police officers or security guards in schools?
Why not have quality government provided healthcare and a welfare state, as well as private alternatives in healthcare and an understanding that opportunity and attitude is the biggest factor in persons lifting themselves out of poverty?
Sources: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFcf5RQqVEM -- Elephants in Rooms discusses these very issues, even the Texas governor in the US getting mad and bussing illegal immigrants to liberal cities like New York who then said they couldn't handle the influx
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJNTnA2UvWw -- A discussion on the harms on Islamism as it pertains to the fact that the ideology of a reasonable amount of persons who claim to follow Islam is not compatible with Western societies
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrM78ZigyPE -- A Republican senator in the US makes the argument that for the same reason you lock the front door of your house at night, a nation should have a secure border and properly vet anyone entering into the country
I would suggest doing your own research into what's happening in the UK for example, don't just take my word for it obviously.
1. Mythic past and rebirth: dreaming of the lost socialist utopia of USSR etc. which was taken from us all by force and deception.
2. Victimhood and humiliation: working class is the victim of a rigged system, exploited by capital elite.
3. Hierarchy and dehumanization: world is split into oppressors (landlords, rich people, etc) and oppressed (workers).
4. Contempt for weakness: "liberals" let this happen due to their limp-wristedness.
5. Cult of action: revolts, strikes, protests, even violence against oppressors.
6. The leader as savior: Mamdani, Sanders, AOC? This admittedly doesn't quite work in the same way as in fascism.
7. Purification of institutions: Universities, media, and governments must be purged of "reactionaries" or "liberals" who resist the revolution.
8. Propaganda and assault on truth: dissent is violently suppressed. Various kinds of Big Lies (e.g. "the genocide") are spread as absolute truths and are repeated at every possible point.
9. Merger of state and corporate power: seizing both the corporations and state for the proletariat.
10. Violence and terror: glorifying murderers when they murder those "who deserve it".
The term is recently became heavily recycled by left wing activists to label everything they disagree with (and sometimes even used by more radical lefties aka tankies to label less radical ones).
You seem to be in the happy group of people who have never visited the Lemmy main site. Although you may be right about "significant numbers" even if that site seems to be full of them. They might literally all be there.
You didn't really address the crux of my point though. I don't think it's worthwhile to discuss the proto-fascist aspects of a small group without political power, in the context of open fascism with significant political power. It would seem to be hollow both-sidesism.
And what point are you trying to make?
"These paramilitary squads didn’t just protect the movement, they were the movement."
It's not just X, it's definitely Y.