What is this even in reference to?

DHH's post "As I Remember London" which I inferred from this post referring to Omarchy as "fashtech" and based on other recent posts about the same thing.

fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners

I don't see any fear or hatred of strangers or foreigners in the referenced post. I don't want to explicitly link it in case that would anger the mods somehow, but it is easy to find.

You may criticize his nationalism, immigration views, or rhetoric as exclusionary or ethnonationalist. But IMO calling him fascist requires showing more than concern about demographic change.

Is he using “gypsy” to refer to illegal immigrants?

I don't know, you would have to ask him. I was just pointing out that it's not objectively obvious as to their intent and I don't think people are reacting fairly, rationally or even attempting to use critical thinking.

Unfortunately social media amplifies outrage because it generates clicks, and attempting to have calm and reasonable discussions is often simply downvoted and ignored.

In this way I find that tech-central sites with active commentary like reddit/lemmy/phoronix/etc. are quite often just as cancerous as Facebook and such. You would think a lot more technical people would be more rational but I haven't found that to be the case the majority of the time.

It's possible he is actually racist, I don't know, but I agree with you that the word fascist is being thrown around much too easily.

The problem I see is people don't seem willing to have good-faith discussions or accept that other equally valid perspectives can exist.

Out of sheer curiosity I said this to my local LLM:

is it a waste of time to argue with people who are wrong on the internet?

Usually, yes—if your goal is to change their mind. Internet arguments often reward winning, performance, and group approval more than honest reconsideration.

It can still be worthwhile when:

- Someone else might learn from the exchange.
- The claim could cause real harm if left unchallenged.
- The person seems curious and is engaging in good faith.
- You can provide a concise correction with evidence and then stop.

A useful rule: make one clear point, support it briefly, and watch their response. If they ignore evidence, shift the goalposts, insult you, or repeat the same claim, disengage. You don’t have to attend every argument you’re invited to.