It is stuff like your own column here that gives his supporters ammunition.

My inbox would disagree with you. But, sure, let’s take your word for it.

I’ve written plenty about not taking bait and making shoddy arguments that undermine credible criticism against him. (Examples here and here.)

But this piece is credible. As such, I’m happy to deconstruct your arguments for the benefit of those reading. But I’d really encourage you to reconsider your tone and approach.

In addition to “fair”, there is little in your piece that anyone can rationally call “objective”.

A bit strong, yeah? Especially given the very thin (and frequently specious) arguments you use to make said case.

You list each of Eco’s “factors” but you misstate some of them and make up your own definitions for them.

As my piece said explicitly, I used “his headings and my commentary”.

You are trying to infer meaning instead of showing actual examples.

So verbatim quotes and factual summaries of specific actions aren’t “actual examples”?

Eco mentions nothing of “structural equality”. Eco’s position is that the fascist is against rationalism.

What praytell do you think the events of 1776 and 1789 that he references in that section were about?

If you can’t grasp the connection between structural equality and rationalism (and progressivism), I suggest you have some 101 reading to do.

I really don’t mean to be rude. It just seems like this is a subject of which you only have a vague understanding. You come across as more keen to just score points based on where you imagine others to have erred.

It may very well be rational to NOT progress on a specific issue.

That’s not what rationalism means, nor progressivism. Those are terms that carry specific meaning in a political context.

Trump’s calls to roll back EPA regulations and “restore coal” are both “progress”.

Umm, no. Again, you’re confusing the general idea of “action” with the specific political meaning of “progress”.

His comment was directed at Yiannopoulos’s First Amendment rights and UC Berkeley’s failure to protect them.

First, Milo had no First Amendment right to speak at Berkeley. Student groups invite speakers there. The university has veto power, which they’re free to exercise at their own discretion. To do so purely on political grounds is dodgy and possibly a constitutional issue. But hate speech and harassment aren’t protected and universities are free to disinvite on those terms.

Anyway, the university didn’t disinvite Milo. A riot started. The university policy is to cancel sessions in those circumstances. They followed said policy. They have no obligation to risk student safety to allow a known provocateur to speak.

If that is true then the U.S. Supreme Court and the ACLU would also fall to the fascist side under this factor.

The ACLU supported the KKK’s right to put flyers (that themselves contained no direct hate speech) on parked cars. That isn’t a comparable issue.

Nuance, nuance, nuance.

Your piece here reminds me of Naomi Wolf’s previous attempt.

Perhaps that’s the problem. You’re viewing what I said through a lens that doesn’t fit.

I have a strong history of offering corrections whenever I make false or unsupported claims in my writing. I’m happy to do that even when the person correcting me is needlessly aggressive.

But you have yet to make a case here.