It doesn't seem like you do. I think if you're to make a claim, you should substantiate it. Simply calling "Curtis Yarvin", someone with only the most tangential relation to the Trump campaign - and I'm being generous because that's the directive here - a fascist is actually precisely the name-calling I outlined.
The next steps are
A. You define fascism and your understanding of it specifically.
B. You substantiate how Trump is "fascist" in a way that isn't simple name-calling. You'll have to be careful here because comparing Trump to actual murderous regimes is going to be highly tenuous inherently.
A note: simply providing outrageous things that Curtis Yarvin has said to guffaw at also won't suffice. Fascism has a very specific meaning. It is a philosophy very contemporaneous to the 30s and 40s with very specific influences, thinkers, and an intellectual tradition that most people aren't actually familiar with and authors you've likely never read because they simply haven't been translated to English or aren't very popular in Western philosophical tradition for obvious reasons.
Also, it bears mentioning that Curtis Yarvin is a Jew and calling him a fascist has another layer of incredulity attached.
I don't think Trump is personally a fascist, just an opportunist that is suffering from NPD, and found traction to get attention and power with a particular political movement.
I don't see the value in arguing this point- if you are smart enough to understand any argument I made, and I strongly suspect you are, you can see exactly what Trump and his movement are doing and why with a lot more nuance than any single word label would provide- and you already either think it's a good idea or isn't.
People I care deeply about are being targeted, and systematically dehumanized for who they are or where they are from, and all of the checks and balances that would have protected them in the past have been systematically eliminated. At this point we're past the point of discussing these issues productively, unfortunately.
It doesn't really seem like you're interested in having a serious discussion about the points outlined, which is unfortunate, because I suspect it'd have seriously challenged some of your worldview that you appear to passively hold.
Anyways, just in terms of "vibe", I regret to inform you that your response, which I understand and empathize that it resonates heavily and even implicitly with you, is something you literally need to already agree with to engage with meaningfully.
It doesn't seem like you do. I think if you're to make a claim, you should substantiate it. Simply calling "Curtis Yarvin", someone with only the most tangential relation to the Trump campaign - and I'm being generous because that's the directive here - a fascist is actually precisely the name-calling I outlined.
The next steps are
A. You define fascism and your understanding of it specifically.
B. You substantiate how Trump is "fascist" in a way that isn't simple name-calling. You'll have to be careful here because comparing Trump to actual murderous regimes is going to be highly tenuous inherently.
A note: simply providing outrageous things that Curtis Yarvin has said to guffaw at also won't suffice. Fascism has a very specific meaning. It is a philosophy very contemporaneous to the 30s and 40s with very specific influences, thinkers, and an intellectual tradition that most people aren't actually familiar with and authors you've likely never read because they simply haven't been translated to English or aren't very popular in Western philosophical tradition for obvious reasons.
Also, it bears mentioning that Curtis Yarvin is a Jew and calling him a fascist has another layer of incredulity attached.