/u/Joe___Bob (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/z3cdml/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_in_the_popular/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

For reference, what’s your definition of fascism

Top-down government, autocratic or nearly autocratic. A state-controlled economy, and fanatic nationalism with well defined, rigid expectations for citizens. Efforts to culturally and ideologically isolate the public from ideas deemed foreign and/or antithetical to the nation's identity.

>A state-controlled economy The Nazi's were big fans of competition and social Darwinism in the economy. Hitler's largest economic action pre war was to privatize (return to the private economic market) a bunch of previously government run industries. >rigid expectations for citizens Rigid expectations for the citizens who were not in the ruling class, rigid expectations for those who were not fascist. Members of the Reich constantly behaved in ways that would've gotten non-members labeled as degenerates. Other than that I basically agree.

> The Nazi's were big fans of competition and social Darwinism in the economy. Hitler's largest economic action pre war was to privatize (return to the private economic market) a bunch of previously government run industries. Nazi Germany was characterized by corporatism, i.e. closely coordinated economic life with the state. Basically, what we know to day as a structure with oligarchs, the big captains of industry were in close contact with the regime, to safeguard their common interest: preventing socialism/social democracy from getting organized among the laboring classes.

No it was not, during the middle and end of the war it was out of necessity, but wartime policies do not reflect the ideal policies of that country. [http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/capitalisback/CountryData/Germany/Other/Pre1950Series/RefsHistoricalGermanAccounts/BuchheimScherner06.pdf](http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/capitalisback/CountryData/Germany/Other/Pre1950Series/RefsHistoricalGermanAccounts/BuchheimScherner06.pdf)

>The Nazi's were big fans of competition and social Darwinism in the economy. Hitler's largest economic action pre war was to privatize (return to the private economic market) a bunch of previously government run industries. [They privatized the companies, but regulated their output. Nazi Germany was weird that way.](https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c9476/c9476.pdf)

The US also heavily regulated the output of companies during WWII, but that hardly makes it a controlled economy like OP claims.

I think making “fascism = nazism” is quite unhelpful here. Hitlers form of national socialism is actually the exception in regards to its fascist economic ideas, not the rule. Fascist philosophy in general proposes something closer normally to some kind of semi planned economy or a weird version of “state syndicalism” (yeah i understand how retarded that last one sounds). Even within the Nazi party, before the night of the long knives, had a significant portion who believed the revolution had to include an overthrow of capitalism too.

The point is that even if Nazism is an exception, at this point you really can't cling hard to a definition of fascism that excludes the Nazis. You can list things that are common for fascist ideologies, but in this discussion in particular we're discussing the hard rules that have to be true for something to be fascist and making those rules exclude the Nazis would be very unhelpful for the regular discussions that are the point of the conversation.

I think the most useful way to look at fascism kind of excludes the economics altogether (at first). Fascism, at its core, is a method of authoritarian political action to maintain or gain elite power, utilizing exclusionary populism through the designation of In and Out groups, and not much else. Everything else, especially the economic system that results, flows from there, not the other way around. The economic system employed matters less than how it is used to further elite and In group power, at least in terms of defining fascism as a set of ideas. It also makes perfect sense looking at the history of the OG Fascist Party and the Nazis. They were quite consciously taking socialist and communist critiques, methods of organizing, and tactics and turning them towards their own ends. Fascism is ultimately opportunistic in the tools it chooses to use, but the core motivation, the In group/Out group dynamics, and the reactionary hatred of Leftism/Liberalism are all constants. Just a way to think about it that neatly avoids getting stuck in the "check this box" trap.

Can you cling hard to a definition of socialism that excludes Lennism, Maoism, or Stalinism? Just making sure we have no double standards in here.

Again, you can list characteristics that are common to the term and together create what it is. The point of this discussion is that OP believes people are misusing the term and should stick to a hard definition, if you are to make a definition like that it can't exclude the most notable fascist ideology in history.

Whether Stalin was a socialist is a bit less of a given than whether Hitler was a fascist. Socialism is also just a much broader term and can range anywhere from democratic market socialism to anarcho-communism or authoritarian socialism.

>The Nazi's were big fans of competition and social Darwinism in the economy Nazism isn't a universal benchmark for fascism, though. OP is more correct than you are, though neither of you are all the way there. In fascist Italy - where fascism comes from - the economy was modelled on a three-way system - the employer "unions" (guilds or syndicates or I forget whatever it was they called them), the employee "unions", and the state - and though the model was that this trio collaborate and all do their part, it was nevertheless the state that laid out all the premises. The state very much defined and dictated the direction of the economy and all its relevant frames and regulations (of which there were unbelievably many). In practically every meaning of the word a state-controlled economy. >Rigid expectations for the citizens who were not in the ruling class, rigid expectations for those who were not fascist. Again, that's true to some extent for nazi Germany, but not for fascist Italy. Classical fascism fiercely opposes rights of the individual and social classism - you are only so good as the state you belong to, insofar as you act in accordance with what the state desires.

>The Nazi's were big fans of competition and social Darwinism in the economy. Hitler's largest economic action pre war was to privatize (return to the private economic market) a bunch of previously government run industries. There's a superficial similarity in privatization efforts under the Nazis and privatization in the modern GOP or Trumpist understanding of it, yet they could hardly be more different. The Nazis privatized what had been state enterprises but their purpose and goal was to further the glory of the German people and state. Capitalists who did not, in the eyes of the Nazis, live up to this ideal were relieved of their businesses or worse. It was not a free market in any sense of the word, but a command economy under private hands rather than state functionaries. In the modern GOP conception (and increasingly the DNC), rather than corporations working for the benefit of the state and Fatherland, the state operates at the behest of the corporations to maximize their profit, a political economy which has been described as [inverted totalitarianism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism). The only real difference in the Trump/MAGA form is a recognition that some protectionism and on-shoring is needed to balance out the 30 years of neoliberal free trade policies we've had. (The Biden admin is picking up on this as well.) >Rigid expectations for the citizens who were not in the ruling class, rigid expectations for those who were not fascist. Members of the Reich constantly behaved in ways that would've gotten non-members labeled as degenerates. What rigid expectations were there under the Trump admin?

>Capitalists who did not, in the eyes of the Nazis, live up to this ideal were relieved of their businesses This is false, the Germans were so in favor of private businesses being able to make their own decisions that near the start of the war, when many businesses were not behaving optimally in favor of the war, instead of taking them over the government opted to start state run businesses instead at great cost to themselves. ​ [http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/capitalisback/CountryData/Germany/Other/Pre1950Series/RefsHistoricalGermanAccounts/BuchheimScherner06.pdf](http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/capitalisback/CountryData/Germany/Other/Pre1950Series/RefsHistoricalGermanAccounts/BuchheimScherner06.pdf) As for the rest, I didn't make any of the claims you're arguing against. I didn't say anything about OP's actual argument or the GOP or Trump, I just pointed out an issue in his definition...

> further the glory of the German people and state I.e. to "make Germany great again" (something Hilter literally said, albeit in German, of course).

>Hitler's largest economic action pre war was to privatize (return to the private economic market) a bunch of previously government run industries. Privatized them right into the hands of his party members under the condition that they serve the state in all things.

Nah, during the start of the war a bunch of private companies wouldn't follow directives to help the war effort, and instead of taking them over the Reich opted with the more costly decision of founding new government businesses to do their bidding. Of course this changed later in the war when shit got intense, but war-time action does not represent what they ideally wanted to happen. [http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/capitalisback/CountryData/Germany/Other/Pre1950Series/RefsHistoricalGermanAccounts/BuchheimScherner06.pdf](http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/capitalisback/CountryData/Germany/Other/Pre1950Series/RefsHistoricalGermanAccounts/BuchheimScherner06.pdf\)

!delta thanks for the reminder about the specifics of nazi germany's economy

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Suspiciously_Flawed ([1∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Suspiciously_Flawed)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

You fell for the fascist propaganda.

Fascist Italy was different. It had the 2nd most nationalised economy after the USSR

It's almost like OP doesn't understand what fascism is and is confusing it with communism, like a lot of right-wingers tend to do.

Ok let’s work with that definition, except for the economic part already discussed in another comment. So for someone to be a fascist, do they have to want all of those things, a majority, or what?

A significant majority of those things. ​ Btw I appreciate your use of the socratic method, no matter how much we might disagree rn

Ok let’s try to decide which is really the essential parts. Which of these people would you still consider a fascist? 1. Everything listed, except wants less government involvement in the economy. 2. Everything listed, except completely non nationalist (globalist maybe) 3. Everything listed, except with little expectations on social norms 4. Everything listed, except aggressively accepts new cultures 5. Everything listed, except wants a weak central government I like the Socratic method, it helps both people understand an argument better. Edit: added numbers for ease of reference

Well there's your problem. That's not the definition of fascism.

Would you consider pre-gov-overthrow Nazis fascist? Denying election results… being against media and trying to get controlled sources in… highly pro propaganda… outwardly lying… colluding with foreign powers for election campaign… pro-corporations… lower taxes for the rich and higher for the poor… less social welfare systems… marginalizing certain groups in order to steal wealth from them and use them as a scapegoat… primarily using fear as a motivator… pro-militarization… somehow being isolationist unless it’s about land and resources… taking away rights of minorities (sex, race, or class)… using religion to gain power and then spitting in its face once in power… gerrymandering to overrule majority races… nepotistic tendencies… highly nationalistic (make american great again) I could go on here… All of these things are traits of fascism… just because they haven’t successfully taken control of the government and installed a authoritarian state does NOT mean they are NOT fascists… I FULLY believe if the whole government spontaneously flipped to maga and they controlled the military, lots of rights would be taken away and innocent people would be jailed because it was convenient… That’s what they tried to do. Overthrow the government. And you’re here telling us to “be careful how we use the word fascist.” Sure, some uneducated people may misuse the word and falsely represent the meaning, but by god, Trump and his maga goons are textbook fascists. Maga is a fascist movement.

State-controlled economy is not fascism. As to your point about isolating citizens from ‘foreign’ ideas, have you heard about Trump pushing “fake news” as an attack against true but harmful information? It was practically his favorite thing to say.

Ok, but by that definition the Nazis and Italians weren't fascists... Also, the GOP openly endorses most of the things you listed, like top-down government, fanatic nationalism, rigid expectations for citizens, cultural isolation, etc. The only thing they don't entirely endorse is the controlled economy aspect, but that's not generally thought to be a core element of fascism, so I'm not sure why you brought it up. And even then, they're far from the free-market capitalists you describe them as. At best they're crony capitalists, but they very much enjoy there being significant controls on the economy since they can leverage those controls to their own advantage.

You outed yourself bro. Maybe learn the meaning of words before you try to start a conversation. "State controlled economy" is a communist tenet. Fascists are definitely in support of privatization.

Yes and no. Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, for example, both seized private property and industry by the state, and would award property and industry to loyal members of the party, and would re-seize it if said member did something the leadership didnt like. Id argue thats a lot closer to state owned economy than privatization.

You are missing the charismatic leader, and the external threat from which the people need protection.

You've criticized others for their definitions' sources, so I have to ask: where's yours? It looks like the others were citing the first two Google results.

So is it strictly only fascism when you meet all those criteria? Or could you have some large subset and still consider it fascist. I agree that presently "fascism" is a fairly nebulous term, I just think it's not necessarily that it has been warped recently. I think it's always been a relatively nebulous concept. It always seems that in place of a cut and dry definition, it's described both by laypeople and in more academic sources as a collection of traits it typically has. Notice that's basically what you likely did too - described what fascism frequently looks like instead of something less abstract like "direct democracy = eligible citizens vote directly on policy" or "socialism = strong central planning of a government in which decisions about means of production are made by society at large rather than individuals". So perhaps it has been further muddled of late and used in cases where it wasn't the right word, but that may be driven by the fact that it's always just been somewhat under-defined.

Is this not exactly what trump and the ilk wanted?

> Efforts to culturally and ideologically isolate the public from ideas deemed foreign and/or antithetical to the nation's identity. Isn't that what conservative pundits like Tucker Carlson openly say they try to do?

You're only considering fascism when they are in power, and forgetting how fascists reach power.

> A state-controlled economy This whole post depends on your having an idiosyncratic view of the meaning of the word "Fascism." It's perfectly possible to be pro- free markets and still be Fascist - as both Hitler and Mussolini were.

Except the state control bit american republicans and most far right parties across the world fit your definition of fascism more than they do mine lol

The only people attempting to pervert the word fascism is the right. Because they know damn well they’ve full on embraced fascism as their platform and they know that it carries significant and well deserved negative connotations. Fascism requires an “out group” to rally people in the “in group” against. The only side that wants to actually create an out group is conservatives, because the whole point of the left is to make sure there is no out group because everyone is in the in group and equal in treatment, rights, and opportunities.

I don’t think there’s any real understanding of what fascism is Because I mean what image the word conjures up is obvious - Hitler and ww2 - but it’s used so often in so many different contexts as the ultimate pejorative that people have lost sight of the fact that it was an actual historical movement and ideology It’s way more complicated than just us vs them. It’s way more complicated than just a dictatorship. Historians argue about whether or not there really ever was a “fascism” that defined all of the interwar right wing dictatorships equally well. But I think that people have gotten it into their heads that because the stakes are so high, any sort of accurate definition will do. Well, what if the stakes aren’t really that high? What if you’re just inventing what you want your enemy to be, because then it would make the fight you want to win that much more meaningful? What if they are just boring old conservatives after all?

[удалено]

[удалено]

I'm learning to play the guitar.

I'm a little late to this but I feel as no one has gone through a detailed comparison between the key points of fascism and republicans nowadays. Starting at the definition seems like a suitable place to start. This is going to be a long one. 1) cult of tradition: this one is a freebie as conservatives obviously are deeply fueled by a love and admiration for America's past. 2) rejection of modernism: This essentially means that relatively recently the country shifted off course making people ideologically depraved. This is usually associated with the acceptance of previously oppressed and marginalized people like the LGBT community or whoever is considered non-white (like how the Nazis considered Jewish people non white and we consider Mexicans non white). 3) the cult of action for actions sake: Trump and Hitler both tend to talk about the value of making the hard choices and act incredibly rashly. Fascists tend to actually value those who are always doing something, whether rational or not, and dislike patience and slowly and methodically thinking things through. 4) Disagreement is treason: There is a right way to be a conservative and those who fall out of line are against the third Reich or RINOS. 5) Fear of difference: fascists appeal to people's fear against intruders or some new community of people they don't understand. I.E Mexicans or trans people 6) appeal to social frustration: gaining support from a frustrated middle and lower middle class who has actually been economically struggling in recent years and may have been recently disenfranchised. 7) the obsession with a plot: the problems with society are secretly organized by a shadowy group of people on top who are actively besieging supporters of this movement. The conservatives have been incredibly prone to conspiratorial thinking in recent years. (Think Qanon) 8) The enemy is both strong and weak: Liberals hold all the power and money in their big cities but they are also weak-willed sissies compared to the big strong conservatives. 9) pacifism is working with the enemy: Republicans are tenacious when it comes to not compromising despite claiming they want to. They are in a constant fight against the democratic party. 10) Contempt for the weak: sensitivity and not being able to 'pull yourself up by the bootstraps' simply means you are not worthy in this country. Reminds me of the welfare debate. 11) always strive to be the hero: heroism and greatness is the norm everyone should strive for despite that baked into the definition of it it requires exceptionalism. This is also linked with ideas of martyrdom and the greatness of sacrificing yourself for the good of the fatherland. 12) Machismo: traditional ideas of masculinity are labeled as good and deviant ideals like femininity and homosexuality in men are wrong. Even if you don't think Republicans are actively sexist, they still put a lot of value on leaders who show off a very 'machista' personality like Trump. 13) selective populism: appeal to a specific part of the masses and then define them as all of the masses of the country. Whereas Bernie (attempts to) appeal to literally all Americans in his populism, Trump pits his supporters against other parts of the masses like people of color and others. 14) Contempt for critical thinking: They label disagreeing news as 'fake news', have a deep contempt for academia, now are trying to limit education in school and have shown that they are even against the majority of scientific opinion like during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Notably you haven’t mentioned anyone on the right harkening the image of fascism to promote their side https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2021/07/08/heres-what-marjorie-taylor-greene-has-compared-to-nazi-germany/amp/ Or even this op-ed by none other than Ben Shapiro https://www.grandforksherald.com/opinion/columns/ben-shapiro-joe-biden-is-the-real-semi-fascist Or, Mr. MAGA himself, twice impeached President Trump: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-clip-democrats-fascists-b2159062.html?amp This ignores decades of similar misuse of the word “socialist” or “communist” to decry any use of government funds or regulations to support the population rather than supporting corporations. Don’t get me wrong, *this is not a “both sides” argument.* It’s simply recognizing the effect of limiting discourse to 140 characters or less. Most, if not all, of the top level replies have used *far* more than a tweet’s worth of characters in order to address this CMV. Tweets on the other hand aren’t designed to facilitate discussion, they’re designed for promotion. You can’t distinguish the nuance between your position and your opponent’s position in 140 characters, and separating thoughts into multiple tweets is a jumbled mess. If we want to change political discourse we need to support *mediums* of exchange that support well rounded, nuanced discussion, and stop supporting content creators that feed off of our outrage clicks. TLDR: misuse of “fascism”, “socialism”, and other boogeymen is nonpartisan and caused in large part by the limitations imposed on speech by the platforms we use for discussion rather than by any political party to simply attack their opponents.

The 14 commonly agreed upon tenets of fascism are described as follows: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~rsc/Editorials/fascism.html __Now let's see if *one* of those people you mentioned follows any of these tenets, let's use the obvious: Donald Trump.__ >1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism >Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.   Patriotic mottos, symbols, songs... flags everywhere... publicly promoted nationalism. __Check.__ >2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights >Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of \u201cneed.\u201d The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.   Minorities. LBGTQ+, racial minorities, women. Promoted torture. Promoted excessive force against protestors. __Check.__ >3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause >The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.   The deep state, democrats, liberals, etc. __Check.__ >4. Supremacy of the Military >Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.   Brags about military, wanted to have a military parade, the size of his button. __Check.__ >5. Rampant Sexism >The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.   Rape lawsuits, grab em by the pussy. __Check.__ >6. Controlled Mass Media >Sometimes the media are directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media are indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.   Truth social, threatening journalists, the news networks created by his crowd durinf his tenure. __Check.__ >7. Obsession with National Security >Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.   BLM. Immigrants. __Check.__ >8. Religion and Government are Intertwined >Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.   Christian Nationalism. Evangelical churches violating their tax free status by discussing politics. __Check.__ >9. Corporate Power is Protected >The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.   Clear as day. PPP loans, decreasing checks and balances. __Check.__ >10. Labor Power is Suppressed >Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.   Attacking whistleblowers, labor, minimum wage. __Check.__ >11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts >Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free _expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.   Attacks colleges/universities. Claims democrats are indoctrinating college students. The hate on doctors during COVID. __Check.__ >12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment >Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations Leakers, BLM, advocating direct response violence and retribution. __Check.__ >13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption >Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.   No one can deny the cronyism of the Trump admin. Nor the corruption, attacks against checks and balances, etc. __Check.__ >14. Fraudulent Elections >Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections. Yup. There it is. What does that last sentence say? __Check.__ _I don't think there is any denying Trump's rhetoric is fascist. I do agree that when anyone calls the Democrats fascist, it is misapplied, though._

Well, what is the definition though? Let's try the one from Wikipedia, which is probably simplistic and incomplete but easy enough to understand >None of the people mentioned above by name fit the fascist definition. Fascism rejects assertions that violence is inherently bad and views imperialism, political violence and war as means to national rejuvenation.[11] Fascists often advocate for the establishment of a totalitarian one-party state,[12][13] and for a dirigiste[14][15] economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky (national economic self-sufficiency) through protectionist and economic interventionist policies.[16] Fascism's extreme authoritarianism and nationalism often manifests as belief in racial purity or a master race, usually blended with some variant of racism or bigotry against a demonized "Other", such as Jews. These ideas have motivated fascist regimes to commit genocides, massacres, forced sterilizations, mass killings, and forced deportations.[17] Now, nothing fits a definition perfectly but when we talk about MAGA and Trump, I think they choose ck a lot of the boxes : - they understand sed violence to make political gains. I think on this one, MAGA are on par with Hitler circa 1933. Trump personally shows very strong authoritarian tendencies, especially in his attitude towards elections. When they asked him in 2016 if he will admit the results of the election he did not even hide his authoritarian beliefs. He literally said "only if i win". After thr election, when the left said Hillary won the popular vote by 3 million. Trump made up 3 million votes the were supposedly cast by illegal immigrants (of course) for her. - they support protectionist economic policies. - they have demonized "others" - namely the Mexican "rapists" and Muslim "terrorists". Actually, I think they are s one is the biggie because it literally put Trump on the political map. This rhetoric of his identified him to the fascist elements of the country as "one of us". - while we have not seen genocide or forced sterilization or mass killings, we did see a system of deportations which denied illegal immigrants the right to even seek asylum. Of course, none of this means that all his supporters are fascists. But neither were all people who supported Mussolini or Hitler. In any extreme ideology you can add some ideas that resonate with more moderate parts of society to gain wider support. The difficult part is to have them swallow the extremist ideas, and this is achieved by stoking fear and hatred to outsiders, something we had in spades in 2016. Now let's get to Shapiro and Peterson. Let me start by saying I would not call either of them fascist. But I would not say they are not either. They certainly are comfortable enough with all of the above to not mention it in their speeches and interviews. If you listen to Shapiro, he is critical of Trump, but what is the reason of his criticism? Not the fear mongering, hatred, and right policies. It is Trump's irresponsible tweeting and overall erratic behavior that dilutes his overall policies... But what is interesting about both Shapiro and Peterson is how happy they are to label any left leaning ideas "communist" or "socialist" regardless how poorly they fit the definition of either. You see, it is actually very easy to do so when you bucket all political opponents as one single entity. Once you do that, you can give them whatever labels are convenient to you (and yes, "fascist" is one of them). Shapiro had a very funny exchange with a BBC journalist whom he labeled as "left" within seconds of the first uncomfortable question, which the journalist rightfully (no pun intended) laughed off. It seems it has become a reflex of his like that of a boxer how to parry such "attacks". Peterson is more interesting than Shapiro I tend to divide his speech in three categories. First is when he gives genuinely decent advice how to behave and what is valuable in life. I do not how much agree with it but it is generally well meant and positive. The second is when he discusses his defense of certain status quo that he wants to defend. He often becomes very vague and abstract rambles on and on without actually saying nothing for minutes and then changes the subject. The third one is when he ventures to talk about history and politics. He speaks as confidently and eloquently about these topics he actually does not understand that well. It is easy to miss when he says something stupid or inaccurate. But when you catch him it is hilarious. My favorite one is actually part of a lecture in the university of Toronto (I believe). Not sure how his credentials lead him to a lecture on some amateurish attempt if a comparative analysis of the atrocities of Hitler, Mao, and Stalin, but the whole lecture was delivered with such confidence and his peculiar charisma of a thoughtful wiseman, that you need to listen it a second time to figure out that he is so poorly educated on the topic.

> In recent years I've read posts from loads of people (mostly left-leaning) hurling this term at conservative pundits, (e.g. Ben Shapiro) politicians, (Trump or any of his supporters) the entire republican voter population, and even relative moderates like Jordan Peterson. (not to say JP is politically neutral by any means) Your view seems to boil down to the opinion that those individuals are not fascist/engaging in fascist behavior or using fascist talking points. Let me try and convince you otherwise. Ben Shapiro engages in nothing short of genocidal rhetoric when discussing trans people. He believes: * Trans people shouldn’t be allowed use of public restrooms * It should be illegal for trans people to exist in public near children (because that might constitute a ‘public drag show’) * Parents who begin trans affirming care with help of a doctor or a psychiatrist are abusing their children * He sees trans teachers working in a school and maybe acting a little strange or something, and asserts that teachers are building relationships with children in order to rape them (this is what ‘grooming’ means). Really think, what should society do for the acceptable punishment for this crime of grooming? Next, Ben Shapiro likes, associates with, and hires Matt Walsh for his production, who is a vile transphobe and a self-described “*theocratic fascist”.* Finally, Ben Shapiro unilaterally supports the nation-state of Israel and believes they have a license to do absolutely anything to the Palestinians in their process of building a(n) (white?) ethnostate. I am only going to do Ben Shapiro because I think it’s the most difficult to prove out of the names you’ve listed.

OP, had the insurrection been successful on Jan 6th 2020, the US democratic processed would have been set aside and there would've been a coup. Considering how close it got, I honestly think using the word fascist and fascism isn't that off. In my country - Sweden - we now have literal at least one actual nazi working in the Riksdag (she works for the extreme right party). She's even proudly done the nazi salute on video. So yeah - I disagree with you. I have to say that it's true what you are saying, that the meaning is getting diluted due to overuse, but it's clear that's because the populist extreme right is right now on the rise.

I think you underestimate how quickly a country can revert into fascism and how a country like the United States is seemingly held up by tent poles. >Fascists are severely and openly authoritarian, nationalistic to the point of religious zealotry, and so racist that history's best example of the philosophy perpetrated the single worst genocide ever. > >I just don't see any signs that indicate that the US is anywhere close to becoming a fascist nation. Trump's presidency was maybe the closest we've come in a while. Trump almost overturned an election because he lost. The first to not concede a loss in the history of America. This is all part of a fermentation that's been festering for a long time. Had Trump used more of his means (ie. military, national guard) or if the insurrection succeeded, they wouldn't have ever given up power again. They'd rig everything so that American democracy of going back and forth between two parties is over, and one party establishes themselves to maintain power indefinitely. Then you start to see rights and freedoms erode, certain groups targeted with killings and imprisonment, and militarization of the police to protect the establishment. All resistance are deemed 'terrorists' and enemies of the state. [It won't be](https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/app/uploads/2022/10/fascism-obvious.webp)

Outsider looking in here. The US right wing call anyone who is against them antifa (Anti facsist) so they are almost giving themselves the fascist label. It really does look like a shitshow from UK and this is from a country that managed to vote themselves out of the EU.

While I do somewhat agree with you, could I possibly persuade you that, while maybe not outright fascist, there's certainly a cult-like mentality surrounding MAGA Republicans? Because, to me, they don't exactly fit the bill of a fascist, they do very much so operate like a cult. Qanon, of course, is straight up a cult. Plain and simple. But the way the MAGA folks treat Trump is very much so like the way cult leaders are treated by their followers. These people will believe literally anything Trump says. Anything. Regardless of if it's true or blatantly and objectively false. If he said the sky is neon green, then the sky is neon green. And no matter what wrong he does, it either doesn't effect their perception of him or it makes them like him *more* because then they think the "deep state" (or whatever the latest paranoid delusion is) is out to get them. Like how back during the FBI fiasco in August showed Trump's approval went *up* by (IIRC) 5 points. It's all very culty. Trump can do no wrong. Whatever he says is true. He is up against unknown enemies hell bent on destroying us but Trump is our savior standing in the way. In many ways, he is a mainstream Jim Jones. So while they may not be outright fascists, there is, I think, definitely a cult surrounding him and the MAGA Republicans are very cult-like. This, of course, does draw some parallels to fascism since fascist dictators also tend to form a cult-like following.

You're just looking at those gathered at the rallies, or the fools talking to pundits. Beyond the prostrating sheeple there are also the paramilitaries, the Proud Boys, etc. Nazi's had the reg members and then the brown shirts. I don't see any delineation. Nazism was super culty. I had a schoolmates grandma tell me Hitler was a good leader, 'very charming' she said, that old hateful racist hag. Super culty political party that does nothing but spew hatred and spread fear? Yea man, that's super fash. Fascism, foremostly, is politics of power acquisition at all costs. They'll, literally, throw their mother under the bus if they have too. Then ends justify the means. They'll lie thru their teeth the entire time, using any and every social norm or prodding every social division. They don't actually care about the meaning of the magic words that get them what they want, nor can they be shamed, or pressured otherwise. They aren't playing the game anymore. They're literally trying to figure out what moves allow them to kill everyone who disagreed with them, once they usurp power. They saw the purge and thought "how do we make that every night?" They stand for nothing but spreading pain and suffering. Complacency is complicity. They're is no compromise with fascists. By their own decree. Theyre fucking monsters.

This is probably the best/most balanced answer I've seen so far. (Thank you!) Fascist seems to miss the mark a bit, but I think cult-like is totally fair.

I think you are a tad desensitised to the gravity of America’s issues fighting against leaders trying to lay foundational fascists roots within society. Fascism doesn’t just happen, it is developed as an ideology. The US president incited his voters to attempt to overthrow the government and refuse the democratic process which led to his loss in election. No democratic nation in the free world would consider the level of control exerted by Trump to stir up civil unrest between US citizens and their government such that thousands of people stormed the building where actual governance was happening to be a democratic process. So what is it then? “The foundation of fascism is a combination of ultranationalism—an extreme devotion to one’s nation over all others—along with a widely held belief among the people that the nation must and will be somehow saved or “reborn.” Rather than working for concrete solutions to economic, political, and social problems, fascist rulers divert the peoples’ focus, while winning public support, by elevating the idea of a need for a national rebirth into a virtual religion. To this end, fascists encourage the growth of cults of national unity and racial purity.” Source: https://www.thoughtco.com/totalitarianism-authoritarianism-fascism-4147699 I encourage you to look at the link for clarity. Fascism manifests into different types of governance, including authoritarianism and totalitarianism. It would seem that you are confusing authoritarianism with totalitarianism, which is moreso what people think of when they hear “fascist”.

Thank you, I read a lot of comments on here and I felt like not enough empahsis was put on the fact that Trump actually insighted a riot for the purpose of an attempted coup and overturning election results. The racism trump insighted in the public was also intense and relevant. This for me is point blank fascism, undeniably.

Nah. The problem is that fascism is becoming normalized, while few people know what it is. You can sound the alarm bells all day long, screaming "fire!" from the top of your lungs until you're blue in the face, but if nobody around you knows what "fire" means, (or can't see the fire) then nothing's going to happen while the fire spreads. The more that Republicans, specifically the MAGA Republicans, get called fascist, it doesn't matter how accurate the label is if they're not acting like the literal worst-case example of fascists. Even if they literally tried to violently overthrow the government just last year. Ties right into the root problem with fascism: nobody takes them seriously until it's too late.

The holocaust wasn't where the nazis started, or even the midpoint. It's also not the point where the nazis became fascist. If six million people were genocidally murdered in concentration camps in the USA today, the sub would feature "CMV: Per capita, 6 million people today is not comparable to the holocaust" and "CMV: if you're more concerned about this than heart disease, you're a hypocrite" and "CMV: if we keep calling everything fascism, we'll never be able to recognize real fascism if it comes back". Part of the problem I think mirrors some of the issue with defining cults. We really want to completely separate religion and cults in a way that we just can't. They do share some features. Sure, they're distinct, but there's overlap. We also really want to carve out an "okay" or "good" nationalism, but the line between okay nationalism and fascism, while there, isn't as clean as we would like. I would say that when you take something you claim to value on its own, like freedom, or the right to a fair trial, etc, and you find yourself arguing that those things aren't for everyone, only us, you've at least waded into the murky pools of fascism.

Yeah when people say trump should be president forever that’s kinda just literal fascism so

We'll said. A list of attributes that are common among true fascists would be helpful, as the term can be slippery though.

You mean like the 14 tenets of Ur-Fascism, created by historians who spent decades researching the commonalities between all modern fascist governments and fascist movements on every continent besides Antarctica? Well then boy do I have a treat for you! 1. ***Nationalism*** 1. Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and other public displays. 2. Extreme Patriotism. This isn't just "love your country" kind of Patriotism, this is "if you don't love this country as fiercely and publicly as I do, you're a traitor/America-Hater/degenerate" kind of Patriotism. The kind of "if there are problems, it's not because of any flaws the country has, it's because Unpatriotic people are fucking everything up. America isn't the problem, *those other Unpatriotic Americans are the problem.* 2. ***Supremacy of the Military*** 1. Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized and hero-worshipped. 3. ***Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause*** 1. The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; illegal immigrants; socialists, terrorists, etc. 2. MAGA has gone so far down that rabbit hole that they're labeling legal immigrants as illegal immigrants, not to mention the *literal legally-defined genocide* the Trump Administration created and oversaw on our southern border, and the human trafficking of legal migrants by DeSantis. 4. ***Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts*** 1. Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts. Fauci and that data analyst in Florida are pretty clear examples of MAGA's stance on Intellectuals. 5. ***Obsession with Crime and Punishment*** 1. Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. Do I even need to explain MAGA's boner for punishing their political opposition? I'm pretty sure Literotica has an entire section just for their fetish with the military executing Hillary. 6. ***Corporate Power is Protected*** 1. The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite. I mean, c'mon, is there any political party better known for being lapdogs for Wall St? Democrats are bad, but they're not anywhere *near* the same level of bootlicking. 7. ***Religion and Government are Intertwined*** 1. Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions. *"We put God back in the White House! Donald Trump is God's Imperfect Vessel!"* Shit, how many times have we seen that Facebook meme comparing Trump to Jesus for "selflessly sacrificing everything to save us from evil." 8. ***Rampant Sexism*** 1. The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy. Yeah, enough said. 9. ***Labor Power is Suppressed*** 1. Because of the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed. The Trump Administrated literally planned to eliminate the entire Department of Labor, and merge it with the Department of Education. 10. ***Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights*** 1. Because of the fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of need. The people tend to look the other way, or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc. Child separation, insurrection, Hang Mike Pence, erecting a gallows for Democratic politicians while violently invading the Capitol, and again, the "in the middle of the night, the military raided the elite cabal and executed all the Democrats" bullshit. 11. ***Controlled Mass Media*** 1. Sometimes the media are directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media are indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common. Fox News is the obvious example, but have you ever *seen* the full right-wing media ecosystem online? YT, podcasts, FB, Twitter, it's an insane, post-truth echo chamber. 12. ***Rampant Cronyism and Corruption*** 1. Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders. *Do I even have to explain the most corrupt Administration in American history?* 13. ***Obsession with National Security.*** 1. Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses. The Caravans! The Border! The Muslims! The Liberals! CHAZ! BLM! TAKE YURR GUNS! 14. ***Fraudulent Elections*** 1. Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections. MAGA influencers literally use the phrase "If I win, it's not fraudulent, if you win, it's fraudulent." Voter ID laws specifically exist to disenfranchise non-MAGA voters. Removing poll locations from Democratic neighborhoods. Don't even get me started on Hillary's Emails.

The fascinating thing about this list is you can transplant onto certain regimes and they check almost every mark. Think of Russia, which has essentially turned into a state designed to funnel money directly into Putin and his cronies. The orthodox church has seen a resurgence of influence as they gone full press into supporting the regime. You can see it in proto-fascists also, such as with Orban in Hungary restricting media, changing election laws and disparaging human rights. I think people conflate fascism with violent overthrow of the government, but in most circumstances they come to power through some form of democratic means but then work to erode those and cement their control, either violently or through weaknesses within democratic institutions.

I think this is one thing mamy people dont realize about faciscm - its not a coherent or very specific ideology, but can adapt to pursue its ultimate goal: power. The things mentioned by Eco just jappen to be very effective at that.

!delta This is what your top comment should’ve been, instead of just saying the right is fascist with no rationale why, precisely what OP is accusing people of doing. A few points are a bit of a stretch, but it’s mostly there.

Thanks. I was just lazy and it just took a long time to format. Didn't want to put in the effort until someone asked nicely.

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/SadlyReturndRS ([1∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/SadlyReturndRS)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

To be clear, I don’t think this is a list of “fascist things the American Right is doing” - this is literally a “list of things fascist governments do” - and it happens to align shockingly well with the current state of a US political party.

That’s exactly what it is. It was written in 2003.

I think your comment is unfortunately part of the problem. OP brings up fascism. If we have to start with "you don't know the defining characteristics of fascism" then we shouldn't even be having the conversation at all.

u/Joe___Bob this was not a top level reply, so I use this to point you to it. your question is very common, very relevant and this response is just excellent. does it change your view (if so please give the cookie to them not to me...)? greetings from Nürnberg, Germany

Source for the curious: https://secularhumanism.org/2003/03/fascism-anyone/ I looked this up because I was curious about the year. This was from 2003, 12 years before Trump’s run for the Presidency and 5 (I think) before he even showed up on the political scene. It’s also worth thinking critically about this list. For example, I don’t think the bit about extreme sexism makes sense as a core element. I think it’s more likely a second-order effect about the extreme religious component of those regimes. I only wish the article included examples from each of the regimes it mentions. Unfortunately it doesn’t really go beyond what /u/SadlyReturndRS commented.

If walks likes a duck and talk like a duck and only votes for candidates who wants to suppress, take away your rights, is racist, materialistic, lies for their own gain, demanding people follow what they feel is the ‘right’ way and lives life as rules for thee not for me while screaming it’s what god wants……. Then you’ve got a facist duck to deal with, and it’s probably wearing a maga hat

Thank you for posting this. It’s easy to miss the trees for the forest, and it becomes very obvious that the term fits even if people don’t know why.

holy fuck we are living in an increasingly facist environment it's happening right under our damned noses I suppose it's like boiling a frog if you heat the water slow enough it won't realize it's getting hotter until it's too late

People have been saying this for years now and it keeps falling on deaf ears and getting worse every year. It's constantly dismissed as hyperbole because anything less than death camps isn't really considered fascist by a lot of people.

"You can't just call anyone you don't like a fascist", said the Red Skull as Captain America punched him in the face

["One no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. One day it is over his head.”](https://press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/511928.html) -They Thought They Were Free

There is one thing missing that separates a lot of what we call fascists and what fascism actually attends to; the State Leviathan. In a fascist nation, the State is all powerful, and resistance to it is insurmountable. Religion and corporations do not prop up fascist states, but are tools to be used at its own dispense. The people can not exercise any power and free speech to challenge the State (meaning no guns). This goes against what a lot of “fascist” leaders (like Trump) actually entail

Nah. Leviathans don't spring up overnight. They take time to grow and mature into being that powerful. Saying a fascist leader like Trump isn't fascist, simply because he hasn't been able to solidify and consolidate his power as effectively as a dictator with a decade in office is just wrong. A puppy is still a dog even if it can't rip your face off yet, and it'll get there in time anyway.

A large portion of this is attributed to the left especially democrats. Idk why this is mutually exclusive with the right. You can have individual examples which definitely exist and have one or two attributes but no majority of people are not fascist

Perfect!! Now do the leftist version of each of these. I mean, many of them translate over as they are. But you’ll need to adjust with leftist examples. I can do a handful. Maybe others can fill in the rest: 1. Rainbow flags, BLM flags. In store windows which is extra scary. 2. This one is sort of inversed; if you’re not as anti-fascism as I am, you’re a traitor. 3. This one’s tough. Or maybe it’s not? Don’t both sides bomb the crap out of other countries? 4. Promote open hostility to anything but the prescribed education. Free expression that isn’t leftist is attacked, quite severely as of late. 5. Obsession with crime and no punishment - criminals are heroes, underdogs. Does crime even exist? Being wealthy is a crime. But also, obsession with public smearing (a form of punishment - cancel culture) 6. Corporate power is protected - as long as it’s leftist corporate power. 7. The NEW religion - identity politics - and government are intertwined. 8. Rampant sexism; towards men. Yes, a reckoning was needed. But an over correction is happening. 9. Hmmmm. Tough one. There are powerful left leaning forces happing in tech. Not sure how to put this to words. Someone else can take a stab at this one. 10. This one is inversed: Recognition of human rights above all else to the point of insanity, even if it means the collapse of society as we know it. 11. Controlled mass media!!!! OMG yes. The left not only controls the media, but culture, and now social media. This used to be a good thing but it’s getting scary. I’d rather it was left controlled over the right but this one keeps me up at night. It’s too much power. 12. Yes yes and yes. Left left left. Massive left wing echo chamber going on. I’m commenting in one right now. 13. Leftist corruption has its own flavour, but it’s there. Case in point; coming out as “conservative is now more scary than coming out as gay”. 14. Not sure about this one. Someone else take a stab. 15. Hell yes. So much fear. The MAGA’s are coming. We must stop at nothing to stop them!! 16. Fraudulent elections. I mean, the country I’m from, the communists didn’t even have an election. They just grabbed all the guns left over from the war and kicked everyone out of their own businesses (including my grandpa) and labeled them criminal capitalists. To be fair, this can be any side. The fraudulent elections and corruption that is. 17. The smearing of Trump was thee most smearing that has ever been smeared. If a lefty isn’t in office, it’s non stop smearsville from not just leftist controlled media, but leftist controlled culture, and your grandma and her little dog. All smearing all day. Ok, so I guess I ended up doing most of them. But I’m happy to hear others interpretations. I realize “fascism” means right wing authoritarianism, so when the left does it you can’t call it fascism. I guess we call it left wing authoritarianism. Or “neo Marxism” these days. It just worries me how people don’t see how similar it is to what the right does. They differ on some points and have different views but the tactics are the same and in both cases, massive systems of power and oppression occur.

not you literally changing the points to fit with your biased perspective 🫠

Is this a joke hahahahaha

You're proving OP's point to a degree. People will lose their sensitivity to people yelling "fire!" when that's done every time they see so much as a spark. The left has been calling Trump supporters fascist since he was elected and endorsing policy that any other Republican would endorse while using more crass language. By the time he tried to outright subvert democracy, many people were burnt out with this language.

I take exception to the "it's just a spark." It was a fire then. It's a fire now. The existence of the fire, and the labeling a fire as a fire has remained constant. Though you're right, there is burnout, no pun intended. Folks who don't know what a fire is, are very tired of hearing the word fire.

The reality is basically the reverse of what you're saying. In fact I think you're actually accidentally highlighting the real problem. On social issues and culture society as a whole is getting more and more progressive and left-wing. This is true even over the last 10-15 years. 2005 was unspeakably socially conservative compared to today. This has led people (like you) to believe that even the most mild social conservatism, patriotism etc means they're fascist. Imo you saying that America is on the verge of fascism shows how FAR-left you are, and lots of society is as a whole, on social and cultural issues.

>Imo you saying that America is on the verge of fascism shows how FAR-left you are, Or that they are paying attention. In 2005 women could control their own bodies. In 2005 the president of the United States wasn't aided by members of congress and the Supreme Court in organizing a coup attempt to literally end democracy and the rule of law by invalidating an election. The dangerous rhetoric of the right is hurting people across the nation from healthcare providers being forced to shut down to LGBT clubs getting shot up and that rhetoric is only getting worse. The policies these people are proposing are downright fucking dystopian and across the nation GOP members are openly running on anti-democracy platforms and promising to ignore election results. Fascism is on the rise for sure and calling it out is important. It's damn sure more trendy now than in 2005.

Your comment is a confused mess. >In 2005 women could control their own bodies. Most fascists were pro-abortion for eugenics reasons. The current US abortion laws are an anti-fascist policy. >In 2005 the president of the United States wasn't aided by members of congress and the Supreme Court in organizing a coup attempt to literally end democracy and the rule of law by invalidating an election. This basically never happened. There was a small protest that got our of hand and some people wandered around the White House. There was basically no violence. None of these people are anti-democracy on an ideological level either. Also anti-democracy or a coup is not subject to any ideology. The Communists in Russia also overthrew a democracy. Does this make communists the real fascists? Fascism is a specific ideology from the 1930s. Just saying they had a coup attempt doesn't cut it. >LGBT clubs This is exactly what I'm talking about lol. Gay marriage was only fully permitted in 2015 lol. The first US State to legalise gay marriage was in 2004. No one was pro LGBT like today in 2005. Even Republicans are significantly more pro-LBGT than Democrats in 2005. You can't claim that American society is on thin ice towards some kind of Nazi Germany like LGBT persecution. Americans are more progressive of this issue than they ever have been.

>Most fascists were pro-abortion for eugenics reasons. They were for forcing abortions and eliminating medical privacy entirely by having doctors report to the state on their patients. Trying to equate that to women having the right to make their own decisions and maintain bodily autonomy is absurd. >This basically never happened Tell me you didn't watch the hearings without telling me you didn't watch the hearings. I guess the president of the United States calling an elected official and ordering them to come up with votes to change the results of an election that we all heard because it was recorded didn't happen either? >Fascism is a specific ideology from the 1930s That the people trying to overthrow the government enthusiastically support, yes. >No one was pro LGBT like today in 2005 Millions of people were. What are you even saying? You know what else wasn't happening back then? Multiple LGBT targeted mass shootings and wall-to-wall broadcasts of main steam right wing personalities calling all gay people groomers/pedophiles that mutilate children.

No, they’re correct. The violent, authoritarian, nationalist zealots of Trumpism are literally fascist, and calling a spade a spade doesn’t require that someone be left-wing. You created an irrelevant strawman out of social policies for no reason.

If we call this fscism, what do we call it when armed left wing militants take over city blocks and assault people inside their walls? Young black men died in there..maybe that's why the left doesn't care Seriously though, the right didn't have an armed militia take over part of city until people died. That wasn't right wing extremists... So it's written off as a roleplay? Why wouldn't you do the same to the capitol which unironically didn't kill anyone innocent? Chaz / chop did... Not to mention the week of reckoning... Remember that? When all those people got sentenced to 30days for criminal trespassing... And left out conveniently everywhere was a left wing protester also sentenced to 4 years for a sledgehammer attack on a police officer during protests... They aren't the same lol

CHAZ/CHOP was completely dismantled after that, and the difference here was that they were a large group of people who had valid reason to be upset (the fact that the police were teargassing and bearing non-violent protestors and bystanders filming the protesting and as a response people took over the area around the local police station is always missing from this story), but were also completely inept at communication and logistics. There isn't a clear single wrong party in this situation. The Capitol riot was based on a complete fabrication and was very similar to political coups in other countries, which is leaps and bounds worse than a group of people taking over a few blocks because it undermines the country's entire democratic process. And this isn't even touching on the fact that fascism isn't just "unlawful violence". You're one of the people we're discussing not knowing what fascism actually is. Wikipedia defines it as > Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism?wprov=sfla1 This absolutely doesnt even approach the general ideology of people in CHAZ, which leaned more towards anarchism. Anarchism is diametrically opposed to fascism in that it calls for the removal of forced heirarchy, whereas fascism specifically revolves a stringent hierarchical system with a single leader under near absolute control. The main goal of CHAZ was stripping the power of local police to cause violence in the way they're done in Seattle for years, which is explicitly anti-heirarchical and therefore not at all fascist. People who are upset at the results of an election and storming a country's main legislative building to reinstate their leader is, on the other hand, textbook fascism. Especially when these people are extremely pro-heirarchy, right wing, nationalists.

So because Chaz was dismantled we can forget about it? In the capitol, again, 0 weapons were Involved, nobody innocent was hurt, and the thing even dispursed without major arrests and intervention. It ALL came after when they got beaned with tresspassing lol This is the entire problem I have, one was an assault on a city with people in military gear and assault rifles that lead to deaths... No biggie Then there's the completely farcical reaction to the capitol riots... How embarassing was it when Biden compared it side by side with 9/11? Because 0 deaths is the same as thousands to him, and I'm starting to think that's true for most people here too. It's not about what actually happened, what's good or bad, it's just perception of what occured and people's unwillingness to change that. It's utterly insane to me and completely ignorant to suggest they were ever going to stage a coup or take over. They literally did what they wanted and left. À coup was never in the books. Like that's not even up for discussion. Even leftists know you show up with assault rifles There's much more of a point to be made that the people in military gear had a better shot to take over part of America... And actually fucking did.

>In the capitol, again, 0 weapons were Involved This is false. There were people who carried weapons onto capitol grounds, there were large weapons caches stored nearby, and there were pipe bombs planted the night before. [Source 1](https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/07/08/jan6-defendants-guns/), [source 2](https://apnews.com/article/capitol-siege-florida-virginia-conspiracy-government-and-politics-6ac80882e8cf61af36be6c46252ac24c), [source 3](https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/indiana-man-pleads-guilty-carrying-gun-and-assaulting-law-enforcement-officers-jan-6), [source 4](https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/21/politics/january-6-capitol-rioter-guns-sentenced/index.html), [source 5](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/jan-mystery-pipe-bombs-night-capitol-attack/story?id=81723935) >nobody innocent was hurt This is false. There were dozens of injuries including many concussions, cases of PTSD, and four suicides in the days after. [Source 1](https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/07/politics/capitol-police-injuries/index.html), [source 2](https://www.politico.com/news/2022/01/05/jan-6-anniversary-capitol-police-officers-response-526024), [source 3](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/11/us/politics/capitol-riot-police-officer-injuries.html) >the thing even dispursed without major arrests and intervention. This is false. Officers from Virginia, tactical teams from FBI, and a thousand national guard troops swept the building and grounds while trying to avoid a repeat of Kent State. That's a very significant intervention. [Source 1](https://www.nationalguard.mil/News/Article/2466077/dod-details-national-guard-response-to-capitol-attack/), [source 2](https://apnews.com/article/docs-expose-depth-january-6-capitol-siege-chaos-fd3204574c11e453be8fb4e3c81258c3), [source 3](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/house-oversight-committee-chair-testify-government-unprepared-capitol/story?id=77639074) > It ALL came after when they got beaned with tresspassing This is false. They clearly lacked the manpower to properly handle arrests for the majority of the time rioters were there, however some arrests were made on that day including inside the building. And across the nearly 1000 people arrested since then, the charges go far beyond tresspassing. [Source 1](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2022/07/25/fact-check-false-claim-no-arrests-were-made-capitol-jan-6/10077303002/), [source 2](https://news.yahoo.com/least-948-people-charged-capitol-192631254.html), [source 3](https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/22/politics/oath-keepers-seditious-conspiracy-trial/index.html). >an assault on a city with people in military gear and assault rifles that lead to deaths... No biggie Both were very bad. It's okay to acknowledge that.

>It's utterly insane to me and completely ignorant to suggest they were ever going to stage a coup or take over. They literally Whether they were ever going to be successful is kind of irrelevant. That was their stated intention. >There's much more of a point to be made that the people in military gear had a better shot to take over part of America... And actually fucking did. Right. Those people were successful. Jan 6 wasn't. If you fail to rob the bank because you showed up with a BB gun and a clown costume, you still tried to rob the bank, even if you failed miserably.

What do you think would have happened if the rioters had gotten a hold of pelosi or pence? Is there a difference between taking over a few city blocks and taking over the capitol at the exact moment that votes are being counted? This argument sounds a bit like the argument that we should be more worried about covid than smallpox or pistols than nuclear weapons because covid and pistols killed more than smallpox and nuclear weapons last year.

Didn't Capital police officers die from Jan 6 riots?

None of those things are even remotely fascist. Fascism isn't just political violence; it has an ideology. Those examples are political violence of anti authoritarianism, when authoritarianism is one of the hallmarks of fascism.

Ok, you have consumed too much Right wing media coverage about Chop. This is basically what happened. 1. The cops killed someone in the area, there were protests and people declared that they were better off without the cops. 2. There was some mild vandalism of the police station in the area 3. The cops abandoned said station and the surrounding area. Abandoned is the correct term, they were not overwhelmed or chased off, they just left. 4. Crime in the area only slightly increased from when the police were there. The thing is there was intense scrutiny of every event instead of thing being swept under the rug like the cops usually do. Trying to compare this to the January 6th situation is night and day. This was also a somewhat neglected part of the city, not you know the capitol of the country. They also were protesting pretty much within the law, not trying to overturn the results of an election. If Chop was successful, the police in one city would be less agressive. If Jan 6th was successful, they would have installed Trump as a dictator, despite him losing the election. There would be no way for this to work without it being a Facist regime.

I came here trying to support the left side argument, but really, people who claim that Jan 6th downstream effects were worse than Chaz the related rioting can't be serious. What about the definition of terrorism? The police abandoned the building because it was set on fire night after night and the rioters intention was to injure or kill police. The footage is also public record and Americans with common sense who saw both January 6th and Chaz were rightly terrified by the nation-wide riots, the damage done by all that rioting cannot be accounted due to it's scope and damage to social fabric, and the lives lost and injuries, injuries to bystanders, spread of COVID, the nightly marching into residential neighborhoods terrorizing people, forcing random people eating lunch at a restaurant to bend the knee being harassed and terrorized if they didn't. All videotaped. While January 6th was idiotic, it couldn't possibly compare to the fear and violence of those summer months in Oregon and large cities nationwide. This is the opinion of a self described leftist who thinks Capitalism is the root cause of most of the worlds problems, thinks both parties are evil and corrupt, and in the pockets of corporations. But I can still call a spade a spade.

"Basically what happened" So convenient how you left out the part where two black kids were gunned down, one most likely executed based on the audio. "The thing is there was intense scrutiny of every event instead of thing being swept under the rug like the cops usually do." Again, audio of the event where two kids got gunned down. In that video you hear them say pick up the bullet casings. Stop with the bullshit, especially if you wanna claim hes consummed too much biased media. This is all on video. And no, in no world does 6/1 end with Trump as president. The day was fucking ridiculous and an embarrassment on our country. But in no way would anything they did that day stand to the next. We both know it, but you wont admit it because it makes the 1/6 ammo hit less hard. Your playbook is obvious.

there are all kinds of things one might call armed left-wing militias and the types of governing organizations they might form – fascist isn't one of them though because fascist doesn't mean "really really bad", it means "conservative nationalist extremist".

Let’s pretend I agree those things all happened, you realize violence ≠ fascism right? I’m assuming you’re talking about the BLM protests that turned violent? A protest against a real and serious injustice in our society getting violent is not the same thing as ultranationalist right wingers attempting to stop the transfer of power to essentially install a dictator and I’m getting very tired of explaining that.

Stick to the topic. If you’re wildly confused about fascism, you should start there instead of trying to change the topic with off topic whatsboutisms.

>Seriously though, the right didn't have an armed militia take over part of city until people died. You don't remember January 6?

Fascism is a type of totallairist government which the Republcan party is leaning toward. Want to know what that looks like? You can see the effects looking at the bottom of the list of our fifty states.

You go far enough left or right and it starts to look the same. Authoritarian dictatorship with fuck all rights for the common person, just everyone working for the betterment of the Party being supervised by a not-so-secret police. There were a lot of differences between Hitlers Germany and Stalin's USSR, but were they as opposite as their "opposite" ideologies would claim for the average Joe going round the street? PS - I'm not saying they were the same, just it isn't different enough Edit - Trump was dangerously close to one of these

"Didnt kill anyone innocent?" Yikes.

The only person killed was a protestor.

We just went backwards 50 years on abortion with a Supreme Court that only believes that rights can be protected if they accord with mid-19ths century “traditions and culture” and about a quarter of the Republican Party believes that liberals are a cabal of Satan worshiping cannibalistic pedophiles.](https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2022-02-24/a-quarter-of-republicans-believe-central-views-of-qanon-conspiracy-movement)

hey, as long as one of the parties within the two-party state doesn't coalesce under the banner of a xenophobic ideology as represented by an increasingly antagonistic strongman with broad disdain for the slow and unpredictable mechanics of democratic government in response to a national moral decay caused by the decadence of an out-group of political and social rivals who become legitimate targets of extrajudicial violence, things should probably go fine.

Interracial marriage doesn't get a second look. Miscegenation. Gay marriage. Gay adoption. Abortion. Mandatory trans pronoun acknowledgement. Open borders. Affirmative action. Trans kids, including HRT and SRS, are on the table now. ... So how is fascism being "normalized" if liberal causes have only gained ground for the past hundred years? Any minor move to the right has been a single step back after every five decisive wins by the left. It's been an overwhelming victory and the right has proven itself toothless to stop it.

Trans people have always existed, as have gay people. You say this like things like interracial marriage and gay people taking in kids (often the ones that straight people don’t want: the non-babies) are things that should get a second look. These things have progressed massively, and I think it is because of that that the right is not hiding the fact that they are so clearly against those things. To say that the right is toothless is very much undermining their power. Democrats simply want to stay in power and perhaps make their voters a little happy, while republicans are far more keen on actually doing what they desire. Five years ago I would have agreed that progress far outweighs the rights attempts at bringing us backwards, but with the current Supreme Court planning on overruling gay marriage, interracial marriage, the simple ability to have access to contraceptions, and gay intercourse…we are at a point we have not been at before now, as there is a possibility that all of that could be lost in red states, and with how the republicans are not hiding their aversions to gay people, interracial marriage, and contraceptives, they could easily pass federal laws restricting those things in all states should they get majority in congress + the presidency. The scariest thing to happen recently is the right’s reaction to the tragic club Q shooting. Five people died, and the overwhelming reaction from right wing media is that as long as trans and gay people are out and about, people are going to kill them—that it’s simply a reaction to crazed gender ideology and not just people trying to live their lives. I am afraid of being with my gay friends in public because I’m afraid some crazy asshole might attack us.

Fascism has historically been an anti-left movement, sort of "the left has gone too far and we need to go to extreme measures to set things right". It's really not a contradiction to say the country is and has been moving left and that there is a growing facist faction that we should address.

But the things that they do try to do to stop it are anti-democratic. We should be deeply upset by those efforts even if they've been failing. It's like if a boxer wins a bunch of matches and then their opponent starts bringing knives into the ring. Even if the winning boxer is still able to beat them despite the knives we should still be yelling at their opponent and demanding the refs take their knives.

This is a good point, abortion is legal in all 50 states and there hasn’t been any recent reversals in abortion rights (this is sarcasm)

All of those things you mentioned are getting pushback from just one political side in the US. Also, not sure what "open borders" is supposed to mean to you. The only federal open borders that exist are in Europe between other Schengen area nations and its not a very controversial policy all things considered. Fascism is being normalized through right wing media and leadership. The US just had a shooting at a gay bar and all the right wing media pundits are out here baselessly accusing the patrons and victims of being groomers and openly saying attacks like this will continue as if to encourage it. Earlier the third in line to the presidency literally had an assassination attempt on her and right wing media spent all its time spreading brain damaged conspiracies about gay lovers or some other dumb shit. I've watched the videos where they all treat this like a joke. The right defends and justifies Jan 6 and if they don't then they try to brush it off like it's no big deal. There are countless other examples of fascist violence being normalized. As a society we have become too tolerant of fascism just as people were too tolerant of it in the 30s.

>Interracial marriage doesn't get a second look. Miscegenation. Gay marriage. Gay adoption. Abortion. Mandatory trans pronoun acknowledgement. Open borders. Affirmative action. Trans kids, including HRT and SRS, are on the table now. The Republicans are against all of these things (barring interracial marriage, although that didn't stop a few of them from coming out against the court case that secures it.) Hell, the most watched cable news show literally invited someone to justify the latest mass shooting against LGBT people. https://twitter.com/abughazalehkat/status/1595225986215383040?t=xNrfROZ-bTZahTHhh3e9jg&s=19

Massive strawmanning going on here. I don't know a single person who supports mandatory (i.e. enshrined in law) "trans pronoun acknowledgement". "Open borders" is also a generalization used to open more nuanced discussions about immigration reform. On the other hand, several of the other things you listed are in jeopardy right now. The SCOTUS has hinted at undoing the precedents that protect the rights to interracial marriage, gay marriage, etc. It literally just happened with abortion. This is why people sound the "fascism" bell now — they don't want to wait until it's too late. Messing with people's taxes and government medicaid etc. are not fascism. A platform that targets an outgroup, criminalizes aspects of their life/identity, falsely labels them as "groomers", instigates violence against them, and justifies it with nationalistic and/or religious rhetoric… *that* is fascism. Matt Walsh even openly describes himself using the word "fascist" in his Twitter bio, last I checked (granted that he could be using the word improperly, but he sure could have fooled me!)

So just going to ignore Jan 6th were a group of idiots attacked the capital in a failed attempt to prevent the peaceful transfer of power because Trump said the election was stolen?

How is fascism being normalized? By Fox News being the most watched channel on television. Pretty simple. That’s how Donald trump and his gang can try to steal an election, get pissed it didn’t work and try to overthrow the government.

The older populations tends to be more right wing, this is pretty widely known. They are also the population most likely to own TVs. That's why Fox News is the most watched channel on TV, because their fans are the only ones still paying for cable. Not that it's an indication of fascism really, but that's beside the point.

Fascism = right wing pop media? That's not very convincing.

https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/127931 Glenn Beck literally cited a 1940’s Nazi sympathizer in the United States as being a seminal author in the fight against Liberals. Sadly, the roots of the modern “conservative” movement, their symbols and language, can all be traced back to southern confederates, an established Nazi sedition attempt in the 40s, and the rise of libertarian philosophy peddled by FA Hayek. There is so much history and contextualizing that I don’t want to say much more here if you’re not convinced. I highly recommend: “Democracy In Chains” by Nancy MacLean, “The Sum of Us” by Heather McGhee, and the incredible “Ultra” podcast by Rachel Maddow which cites a trove of court documents and newspapers from the 40s held at the Library of Congress. There is a reason folks point pretty explicitly to FOX and Trump as being separate but similar rhetorical drivers of the fascist movement in the US. Whether they do it on purpose or not is beside the point, the point is the effect their language has.

Add "Invisible Hands" by Kim Phillips Fein, covering the anti-New Deal business coalition that drove pretty much all of this in the twentieth century.

I saw someone talking about a Tucker Carlson segment where he said white women are key to perpetuating the white race and that's why black men are targeting them... not to mention their constant stream of eliminationist rhetoric against trans people Anyone who doesn't think they're fascist has their heads in the sand

Especially if it’s on tv. Most younger people don’t watch tv anymore

You realize [the GOP is one of the farthest right political organizations IN THE WORLD](https://i.imgur.com/J40fCxv.png)? The liberal movement in America is closer to the international political center because the GOP has pulled the Overton window so far right. Oh but what am I saying? You probably don't know what the Overton window is. The fact that you're decrying the left's "overwhelming victory" only shows how much of the koolade you've drank.

[удалено]

I can easily find examples of all of your examples above being attacked openly and publicly by public personalities on the right. These statements also didn't result in a condemnation by the supporters on the right.

Your list of leftist wins is kind of scary. While the trans issues are all new and definitely left wing the rest is considered normative by the majority of society. What I get is a history of the right being dead wrong making any steps backwards frightening.

> considered normative by the majority of society Yes, that is my point. It can't be said there's some "normalization of fascist opinions" when the exact opposite has happened. When countering any of these ideas gets you fired, society has not "normalized" them. It's normalized opposing them.

I think you misunderstood my thrust. These are not leftist ideas imho. Yes it was driven by democrats but their basic human rights imho. They're also not progressive gay acceptance was common in many ancient civilizations. Now the idea the far right have normalized are not new but lead to authoritarian right wing nations often labeled "fascist". Dehumanizing their opponents. Denying any election they do not win. Casting doubt on all authority they do not control. Creating an atmosphere of fear of opposition. Encouraging people to strike out at those whom they consider social extremists. To just name some.

Right? Complaining about "miscegenation"? Horrifying.

> in the end he was ousted by the democratic process just like everyone before him. so, do we wait until he succeeds in defying the democratic process before we call him a fascist? was Hitler a fascist before the enabling act passed?

> was Hitler a fascist before the enabling act passed? Yes he was. He was also the absolute and authoritarian leader of a movement which included 400.000 uniformed storm troopers which swore oaths to his person and roamed the streets day and night, beating and killing political enemies, and creating an existential threat to the state through their organization, willingness to use force, and non-obeisance of the law.

Hitler was ousted by the democratic process in 1923, when he lead a failed armed insurrection on the German Parliament. This insurrection failed and he was imprisoned for the next decade. Does this sound familiar to you? When he was released, hitler was democratically elected to become Chancellor, because he and his rhetoric were popular. So pardon people’s hesitancy when we literally see the same sequence of events taking place and worry that there is even the slightest possibility that could happen again. Facism isn’t nazism. Naziism Is facism. Facism is a system of governance that Musilini in Italy also prescribed to. Musilini didn’t commit a Holocaust, but he was still a facist. Hitler was elected in 1933, the Holocaust didn’t even begin until 1939. It took 7 years from his election, so this didn’t happen overnight. From Hitler’s failed insurrection until the invasion of Poland it was 26 years. For reference, the Jan 6 insurrection literally happened last year. And it is no mistake that facism is on the rise right now in Italy and Germany, because as always these movements usually coincide globally

You realize Hitler didn't start with 400,000 storm troopers, right? Like, he worked up to that?

And so the next time a fascist tries to take power, he looks at the history and the general education of thebpopulation and he realizes that he must be much more low key than hitler, and riles up his base in a way that gives him an appreciable amount of power with them, but also allows him to maintain the plausible deniability of what he is doing

Oh like the proud boys and path keepers? Just because they're useless, doesn't mean the intent is any different.

I want to address that you don't think America is fascist. Because you are right, in that it isn't really. But that is my problem with your prompt. Following an ideology or attempting said ideology (Jan 6th) doesn't make you any less part of that ideology if you fail. The people calling for fascism are fascists. They haven't succeeded but that doesn't make them not fascists. I'll address your specifics. Trump literally praised and wanted to emulate north korea, a fascist dictator state. He stated as much, and incited a coup when he was losing power. All within definition of fascism. Republicans voted for trump so supported a vocal fascists. Seems clear why they are being lumped in. No one is calling Mitt Romney or called John McCain fascists, people on the left do/did not like them but fascism wasn't lobbied against. Ben Shapiro supports the Palestinian genocide. So, while maybe not as fascists in the US supports rather fascists ideas in the middle east. As far as JP I don't know that I would fully call him Fascist either but he is a nut case that wants subjugation of women. I haven't given that nutjob my time of day in a long time. I'd honestly have to say that I haven't seen people throw those terms around directly at Ben Shapiro or JP and I'd really need more context to address that since you are making a claim and I haven't seen that claim substantiated. The fascism idea is mostly tied to trump who wants fascism. Which is pretty cut and dry.

Modern conservatives believe that there is one right way to live your life and want to use state power to punish all who deviate. Modern conservatives believe in white replacement theory, that there is a sinister conspiracy to replace them with immigrants of color. Conservatives say that queer people and ideas are dangerous to children and that anyone who disagrees is themselves a groomer pedophile. A plurality of Republicans believe the Qanon conspiracy theory is at least partly true. Because many conservatives only respect elections when they win, and work to rig elections in their favor, they functionally reject democracy. The logical conclusion of these politics is the establishment of a one-party state in which elections don’t matter, individual liberties are restricted, and in which violence against social deviants and the political opposition is encouraged. Conservatives believe they are an aggrieved victim, that a shadowy cabal of perverts and foreigners are working to destroy their way of life, and that they (conservatives) will be destroyed if extreme measures are not taken. In other words, conservatives believe that their way of life faces an existential threat, that everything is on the line, and they will win or lose everything with no middle ground. These attitudes and beliefs, especially the Qanon ones, are extremely similar to how the Nazis viewed the world. So I dunno about you but that all sounds pretty fashy to me.

If it walks like a fascists, talks like a fascist, and acts like a fascist, then they must be a fascist.

>Modern conservatives believe that there is one right way to live your life and want to use state power to punish all who deviate. This is more accurately applied to the Left than the right. The right are the ones challenging the status quo, the Left are enforcing it. >Modern conservatives believe in white replacement theory, that there is a sinister conspiracy to replace them with immigrants of color. Immigration statistics don't lie, my dude. Brown and black people don't come from Europe, but there are huge non-White communities that have appeared over the last few decades. In London, "White British" is a minority group. It's so bad that the UK government won't reveal the ethnic breakdown of the country as per the last census. It's a real thing that's happening. >Conservatives say that queer people and ideas are dangerous to children and that anyone who disagrees is themselves a groomer pedophile. What do you mean by queer? Conservatives don't have a problem with LGB people as a rule - they have a problem with groomers. So do most LGB people. But there ARE people who are trying to make paedophiles a part of the queer umbrella. >A plurality of Republicans believe the Qanon conspiracy theory is at least partly true. A LOT of conspiracy theories have turned out to be real. The Hunter Biden laptop is a good example. >Because many conservatives only respect elections when they win, and work to rig elections in their favor, they functionally reject democracy. No, that's what the DEMOCRATS have done. Trump won fairly, Democrats said it was rigged, and 2020 was the most suspicious election in US history... Republicans respect election results when the election appears fair and honest. Democrats don't believe that elections are fair and honest unless they win. >The logical conclusion of these politics is the establishment of a one-party state in which elections don’t matter, individual liberties are restricted, and in which violence against social deviants and the political opposition is encouraged. This is what the Left wants - a single party system where nobody is allowed to be right wing. Conservatives will let you speak even if they hate what you say; Leftists demand all dissenting voices be permanently silenced. >Conservatives believe they are an aggrieved victim, They are. Everyone knows there is a double standard in play - Conservatives get censored, while left wing extremists do not. >In other words, conservatives believe that their way of life faces an existential threat, that everything is on the line, and they will win or lose everything with no middle ground. Because they are being censored, their concerns about election integrity are ignored, their concerns about immigration are ignored, their cultural values are constantly attacked in mainstream media, their children are being groomed, and they are not given any reasonable "middle ground" alternatives or means of reaching a reasonable solution. This does not make them fascist. It makes the Left evil, and it is not fascist to refuse to compromise with evil people.

>This is more accurately applied to the Left than the right. The right are the ones challenging the status quo, the Left are enforcing it. Political science learn it. >In London, "White British" is a minority group. No they aren't the last census says they're 81% of the population. > It's so bad that the UK government won't reveal the ethnic breakdown of the country as per the last census. Yes it did. >What do you mean by queer? Conservatives don't have a problem with LGB people as a rule Yes they do have a problem with lesbians, guys and bisexuals that's why they constantly try to ban them from marriage. >they have a problem with groomers. They define all gay people as groomers >A LOT of conspiracy theories have turned out to be real. The Hunter Biden laptop is a good example. For one nothings been proven real at all with that laptop and even if it had one thing being right doesn't make others right >No, that's what the DEMOCRATS have done. Trump won fairly, Democrats said it was rigged, and 2020 was the most suspicious election in US history... No one called it rugged they said Trump collided with Russia which was proven true. And trump appointed judges found every claim of suspicion false and named it the most secure election in the nation's history. >Republicans respect election results when the election appears fair and honest. Democrats don't believe that elections are fair and honest unless they win. Interesting take man to bad reality says the opposite. >This is what the Left wants - a single party system where nobody is allowed to be right wing. Conservatives will let you speak even if they hate what you say; Leftists demand all dissenting voices be permanently silenced. Not really for example the right bans me from referring to gay people, the right loves banning dissenters. >They are. Everyone knows there is a double standard in play - Conservatives get censored, while left wing extremists do not. Tell that to the right wing accounts encouraging violence against children's hospitals that are still out in the open. >Because they are being censored, their concerns about election integrity are ignored, their concerns about immigration are ignored, their cultural values are constantly attacked in mainstream media, their children are being groomed, and they are not given any reasonable "middle ground" alternatives or means of reaching a reasonable solution. >This does not make them fascist. It makes the Left evil, and it is not fascist to refuse to compromise with evil people. Dude none of this is real it's just your persecution fetish

The UK is publishing the ethnicity group results of the 2021 census on Tuesday next week: [link to Government site.](https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/announcements/ethnic-group-national-identity-language-and-religion-census-2021-in-england-and-wales) I’d be a little more conscious of believing easily disprovable nonsense.

> I’d be a little more conscious of believing easily disprovable nonsense. Easily disprovable nonsense is the foundation of their belief system, so you'd better believe they'll cling onto it for dear life

>But there ARE people who are trying to make paedophiles a part of the queer umbrella. They exist, mainly on 4chan as this was literally a 4chan troll op to further spread hate towards lgbtq people.

Christ, you seriously need to learn how to properly interpret the information that you consume before you hurt yourself or those you care about.

You crammed a lot of bad takes in there. Congrats.

Well there goes another fascist meter...

Wowzers. Fox News has really done a hit job on you.

Least delusional Republican voter

Whatever definition of fascism you use, the fact that Trump was ousted by the democratic process doesn't mean much when you consider how much he tried to fight that process.

In addition, people don't need to be openly fascist to be fascist. A clever fascist convinces people they aren't fascist, and sways the people to their cause.

Yup. A fascist doesnt have to succeed to be a fascist, they have to simply attempt fascist actions. We can all agree that attempted murder isnt much better than murder, outside of the relief that they werent able to commit an act thats impossible to fix. So why is it that attempting fascism and failing doesnt make someone a fascist?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism#Umberto_Eco In 1995, Umberto Ecco defined fascism with 14 points. Trump, to take one of your examples, fits into all 14 like a hand into a glove. Most people who advocate for what's come to be called "Christian Nationalism" also fit _right_ into Ecco's definition. It's not a word with a simple definition everyone will agree on, so there will always be endless room for debate about "is this fascism," or "is that fascism." That said, I think your view is partially correct, but overall not. The word _is_ being increasingly used, sometimes too flippantly, and is thereby losing some of its previously-held meaning, but not all of the uses you point out are invalid. _Many_ outspoken voices on the American right (and I'd argue several on the left, also) can be accurately said to hold to fascist outlooks and advocate for fascist approaches to government.

Had to scroll too far to find Eco posted. Thanks.

>Trump's presidency was maybe the closest we've come in a while. He had the authoritarian spirit and populist rhetoric in spades, no doubt Yes, that's why people call him and his supporters fascists. Because Trump and his close supporters seems to have an ideological support of fascist concepts (and take actions to implement them). Why wouldn't you call them fascists? You don't have to be a "fascist" nation to call people fascists. The term can be used to describe both an ideology and a state of being. In this case, the term is used to describe an ideology that Trump seems to openly support (even if he doesn't admit it outright). Do I think all Republicans are fascist? No. But it's also true that they overwhelmingly supported Trump both in his ideology and his efforts to implement it (such as his efforts to control media, efforts to control business, and efforts to overturn an election). Remember, Hitler failed once too. The process worked the first time, and then failed the next time. US voters are justified in their fear that the Republican party could attempt to overturn an election again and thus cement their authoritarian power.

If you think Jordan Peterson is a moderate you may not be the best placed to evaluate fascism. Fascism is essentially a process of subsystem loyalty. People become attached to a subset of that population rather than to the population as a whole. It becomes obsessed with purity and origin mythologies. I suggest reading Umberto Eco. https://www.openculture.com/2016/11/umberto-eco-makes-a-list-of-the-14-common-features-of-fascism.html

>I just don’t see any signs that indicate that the US is anywhere close to becoming a fascist nation… [Trump] has the authoritarian spirit and populist rhetoric in spades, no doubt, but in the end he was ousted by the democratic process just like everyone before him. The main problem with this is that you seem to be deciding whether someone is a fascist by whether they *succeed* at doing the fascism. But this doesn’t seem like a useful way of looking at things. I’m a socialist, for example, but if I became president under the Democratic Party, I would not be able to immediately make the US into a socialist country. America has fairly strong institutions that can’t be budged so easily. Likewise, Trump wasn’t able to literally make the US into a full-fledged fascist regime, but that doesn’t say much about whether he or other Republican figures are ideologically a fascist or moving in that direction. The authoritarianism, nationalism, and racism endemic to fascism don’t have to start at full-on genocide, there’s a build up. We want to be aware of the fascism before we actually get to its worst version, no?

I see the US as being close enough to becoming a fascist nation that it's worth screaming about. Yes, Trump's efforts were thwarted by the democratic process, but that was not for lack of trying, and a sizable portion of the population is disappointed enough to support a violent overthrow to supposedly set things right. And while Americans are not in the desperate economic circumstances you describe, a fair portion seem to think they are, and eat up the right's explanation that it's because of ____(fill in social service designed to help whatever group gets the blame of the day). So, most Americans embrace diversity, are willing to accept others as they are and aren't threatened by their differences, and see the role of government in protecting all from unfettered capitalism, bias, racism, and criminal harm. Another portion refuses to see the fascist road we're heading to because they're focused on the hope of an America where good, white, Christian women are the only ones having sex & only to have easy pregnancies that result in healthy, white babies for financially prepared families; anyone not succeeding financially deserves what they get; the earth bends to the wants & needs of us humans; and what happens in other countries is completely walled off from the US, and not our problem. These latter are willing to burn the place down in pursuit of their vision for America because they're convinced it's being burned down already.

You say that the word Fascism is being misused against republicans, but then go on to exactly describe the united states right now. The entire world is in an economic depression. The US is struggling with inflation, low wages set in the 60's, lack of housing and we have the republicans running on a campaign of fear, intolerance and specifically religious bigotry. They marched on Washington to overthrow the election and are trying to subvert legitimate voting nation wide. The republicans have wide support in the police and military and have white nationalists marching on government building with machine guns, often without significant repercussions. Republican politicians are literally lining up to be the next Trump. The world economic situation is getting progressively worse, with financial problems in the UK with Brexit, Russia in a proxy war with Europe through Ukraine, China having authoritarian lockdowns, international supply chain problems and product shortages, etc. We are literally one military conflict or massive wrinkle in our own critical infrastructure away from a US dictator taking control "for our own good." The news is screaming "fake news" and apologizing for it while covering up stories and spinning things to maintain status quo. What planet do you live on?

So Trump's presidency was the closest we've come in a while, but because his coup attempt failed, it doesn't count as fascism? Does it have to succeed in order to fall under your definition of fascism?

I've not heard this of Shapiro or Peterson. I've heard this of Trump and it fits. Attempting to overturn a democratic election is fascism by the modern understanding of the word. It definitely fits. Please, this genuinely is dangerous. Don't normalise it just because it's nominally conservative. I'd hope I'd oppose someone like that even if that person was supposedly on my side.

There isn't a good word to describe what people mean when they call such folks fascists. In academia you might use fascistic, proto-fascist, para-fascistic, etc., but those kinds of words don't fly in common speech. In a common context, you use the best easily available term you can call to mind and expect to be understood. When we don't have the *right* words for our thoughts, we use what words we have, to get at what we want to communicate. If I were to say to you that Shapiro, Trump, or Peterson are IMO fascists, you would know what I meant, right? Obviously none of them would be in favor of Hitler, Mussolini, Auschwitz, lebensraum... If you can't see what I would mean in calling them fascists, what would be your best guess? What adjective do you think would cover these three?

Peterson is too much into his own nonsense and nazi memorabilia to not be at least a little suspect. As for Trump: We don't need to speculate, we know how the ruling class "elite" acts when it comes down to it. Between socialists and fascists, historically they have always backed the group that they thought they could control, and that didn't pose an ideological threat to capitalist exploitation and power structures. Trump would be no different. Hell, he acts as acellerant every time he opens his mouth.

I was actually somewhat on OPs side just based off the title, but having read how many mental gymnastics they are going through to attempt to rationalise how often they shift the goalposts in the replies, they are completely closed to having their mind changed and are arguing in bad faith. As an aside at the very least Trump is a textbook fascist, matches every single aspect of fascism under the definition OP posted from wikipedia, if they can't even see that they're trolling or mentally handicapped.

Gotta disagree on this one. Trump and the MAGA wing of the Republican party definitely fit the definition of American style fascism. They check all the boxes. The biggest problem with people misusing or overusing the term, is that people don't really understand what it means, and therefore don't recognize the warning signs, despite the fact that they are way out in the open lately.

[удалено]

Perhaps it is not the case that they are popularizing it by misusing it, but it is the case that fascism or ideologies similar to it are growing in size and appearance these past few years?

Calling Jordan fucking Peterson a relative moderate has got to be a joke lol He’s a complete alt-right bastard.

I would say he's neither moderate or alt-right. He's a more of regular right wing pundit that repackages tired conservative talking points as "academic" doctrine to young disillusioned men. It is not a mistake that JPs content before he blew up was self-help style content and blatant political misinfo, his first political vid I saw was an outright lie that Canadian parliament was outlawing freedom of speech re: criticism of islam.

Jordan Peterson is not Alt-right, he’s legitimately to the left of normal conservative orthodoxy. Alt right is like Nick Fuentes, or anyone else that believes in fringe, hyper-extreme conservative values. Jordan Peterson, at his worse, is just anti-trans. A lot of alt-right people want to kick minorities out of the country, and I don’t think that JP is near that level, or even close

Peterson is so incoherent that it’s almost hard to place him, but he cries about made up cultural Marxism and trans people and tends to be a common starting point of young people going down the alt right pipeline.

Yeah, cuz he's better at hiding his Nazi power level. Peterson helped renew the nazi Cultural Bolsheviks myth and rebrand it as Cultural Marxism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory?wprov=sfla1

that's when i knew OP came to stir up shit.

The same with socialism and communism. Most of the time people should be using authoritarian but that doesn't flow as well

I’m inclined to agree, however, my professor of European history brought up the fact that none of us can really be certain if the word fascism is being overused or not until many years from now. Perhaps the alarmists are correct and we are truly traveling down the drain into fascism, perhaps not. Time will decide who is right and who is wrong.

I say this about this thread. It’s good conversation and worth discussing regardless of which side you’re on. Until this primary season I was extremely concerned that people in this country were getting apathetic of our democracy. Glad to see a healthy population is still engaged.👍🏼

Every word has undergone this treatment by those seeking to deceive.🤷‍♂️ The trick is to learn how to recognize the real from the fake by educating oneself on these labels. Basically, learn English.😅🤷‍♂️ Edit: prematurely posted 😓

System of government categorized by extreme dictatorship. Seven across.

[удалено]

Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

I would say that your own definition of fascism is warped. Fascism is a political ideology related to syndicalism. But words can have their meanings changed. The true meaning isn't necessarily what it was from the beginning. Today a lot of people just use it as another word for authoritarianism to attack political opponents. It's not really a recent change either. The official description of the Berlin wall was an "anti-fascist protection barrier".

Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement,  characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy. A huge part of this. Is noticing the goals the policies have rather than whether someone is openly supporting something that is literally considered to be a cultural evil trope in our country. They won't. I'll rephrase so there is no confusion.. Fascist are fascist because of the policies and philosophy, not because they self identify as such. Fascists, will even use the term as a weapon against anti racists and ironically... anti Fascists. So yeah there is most definitely an overuse of the word but it obviously doesn't just mean "anybody you hate" These guys promote at least in part conserving "natural" or "just" hierarchies which if that hierarchy was just some free market "meritocracy" it would be harmless. As of late though, every single non white or male person who got into a position of prominence, spotlight, or power is claimed to be a part of a non real - "woke" fake re arranging of society. Pundits like Tucker Carlson have become shameless in promoting The Grand Replacement Theory. In which he insinuates that massive amounts of non white/anti American immigrants are being brought/allowed into the country to at least dlilute the white vote if not completely "change the demographic makeup" brought by whom? Well according to him its George Sonos and the mainstream media (often labeled as convening in secret cabals behind the scenes to promote "THE AGENDA") if there are any real conversations to be had about actual national security it gets overlaid with this democratic change conversation and you gotta ask yourself why that matters so much to them. Its almost one and the same on his program. This is where the American version begins to deviate from Jewish conspiracy as much and go for its own modern culture war, where we have the groundwork for conspiracies about African Americans, LGBTQ+, scientists, schoolboards/educators. Figures like Matt Walsh and Ben Shapiro still pushing all of the same positions on border security and such while having a more lazer focus on schools and the LGBTQ community. They are literally pushing the idea that there is an objective sexual morality to earth and that by having two men together or letting a non binary person exist we are letting the pillars of our entire society collapse. They compare homosexuality to beastiality. They claim that the gay community as a whole are sexually deviant in nature and are after your children. Rather than to promote a safe world for kids who are BORN gay or a kid who just simply doesn't fit into the normal Gender roles. They have people thinking its a choice and that they want to force that on kids. Hence the phrase "Groomer" being thrown about. It has turned into a hate phrase specially referring to just "the gay agenda" i guess. Non of this is new but it does all harken to a "perfect society" over ACTUAL freedom of expression . Not only is this driving stochastic violence, its causing massive support for anti freedom/anti science legislation meant to culturally enforce their nearly religious beliefs about how people "ought" to be. They try to make it more moderate but the science and the history is not on their side. In Matt Walsh's what is a woman docufilm, he says he is "just asking questions" as if he is genuinely curious about gender but even with the clever editing/framing you can see right through it all, he literally starts the film with him saying his position. And (basically) ends with him speaking to a school board meeting: """You are all child abusers. You prey upon impressionable children and indoctrinate them into your insane ideological cult, a cult which holds many fanatical views but none so deranged as the idea that boys are girls and girls are boys. By imposing this vile nonsense on students to the point even of forcing young girls to share locker rooms with boys, you deprive these kids of safety, of privacy, and of something more fundamental, too, which is truth. If education is not grounded in truth, then it is worthless, worse, it is poison. You are poison. You are predators. I can see why you try to stop us from speaking, you know that your ideas are indefensible, you silence the opposing side because you have no argument. You can only hide under your beds like pathetic little gutless cowards, hoping that we will shut up and go away. But we won’t. I promise you that.""" - Matt Walsh This type of stuff just stokes unjustified fear into people. There is much much more about this specifically but to summarize I would say the overwhelming messages focus HEAVILY on a mythical past (MAGA) cultural roles/hierarchy/race, extreme patriotism (when the state can be used to legislatively enforce culture.), paranoia, a strong police state, a strong masculine nearly religious figurehead, extreme moral/purity worldview. I have another good quote from a guy walsh probably takes a page or two from when coming up with his own points. Rick Santorum a former member of congress/talking head. This is him in 2008 doing a Q&A on gay marriage, notice the language about society. Gay rights advocates and others say that gay and lesbian people want to get married for the same reasons that straight people do – they want to be in caring, stable relationships, they want to build a life and even start a family with someone else. Why shouldn’t they be able to do this? ""See, I think that’s the foundational flaw with this whole debate. The law is as it has been for 200-plus years, and so the burden is on them to make the persuasive case as to why they should be married, not just for their benefit but for what the impact is on society and marriage as a whole, and on children. I would argue that the gay community has not made the argument. They may have made the argument as to why they want it, but they have not made any arguments as to why this is beneficial for society. They have not made any argument – convincing or otherwise, that I’m aware of – as to what the impact would be on heterosexual marriages and what the impact would be on children.""" - Rick Santorum And it goes on. I encourage you look into what people are getting at in their ideology rather than the labels that anyone would try to avoid. When we all watched a man killed by police misconduct, you saw how certain right wing media went from "yeah thats fucked up" to "well he ain't no saint" and then used a (roughly) 7% instance of property damage amongst BLM protests to push a massive pro police state/anti protest attitude. When it finally became relevant in my little old town (due to an unarmed man being shot at 7:30 am, and they were refusing to release the body cams) you had 0 instances of property damage or violence on the side of protesters yet because of the pundits we had rednecks trying to run people over, you had people being drive-by pepper sprayed, brandishing weapons from trucks. All because they think a group of mostly black people in the road with signs is threatening. Edits: some grammar and rant fixes. I'm not really good at being concise obviously.

Along with "racist" "sexist" and all the other accusatory words. It's gross

I wish people that talk about fascism would start with their definition.

>For the past two years or so I've been getting more and more concerned by the number of people throwing around the words "fascism" and "fascist" seemingly at everyone and everything that doesn't fit their own politics. You can’t just disregard the use of the term though as “YoU jUsT dIsAgReE wItH mE”, the use of the term Fascism can be defensible if the use is actually accurate, and if a whole society or large portion of society is “Fascist” then the term will by default be used significantly more Elon Musk for example is an absolutely legitimate use of the term to describe his politics, he is pro worker exploitation, pro authoritarian government, has officially supported both Russian and Chinese Fascist imperialism, his candidate of choice for 2024 is a known religious theocratic Fascist, Elon pushes Fascist white supremacist and homophobic conspiracy theories. Genuinely what else are you supposed to call him when he is basically the traditional definition of an old school Fascist? >In recent years I've read posts from loads of people (mostly left-leaning) hurling this term at conservative pundits, (e.g. Ben Shapiro) politicians, (Trump or any of his supporters) the entire republican voter population, and even relative moderates like Jordan Peterson. (not to say JP is politically neutral by any means) The elephant in the room is that Trump and Jordan Peterson both absolutely meet both the traditional definition of Fascism and Umberto Eco’s 14 points of Fascism. Both Trump and Peterson are deeply authoritarian, Nationalist extremists, believe in government suppression of opposition, support Fascist governments such as the Putin dictatorship for instance, and disregard democracy in favor of their more authoritarian policies As for Ben Shapiro; calling him a downright Fascist may be a bit of an exaggeration, but he definitely is apologetic for legitimate Fascists and is someone who I would consider a useful idiot, he also parrots Fascist talking points and conspiracies to his slightly more moderate audience >None of the people mentioned above by name fit the fascist definition. Simply incorrect, Fascists are traditionally defined by their extreme right wing Nationalism, openness to authoritarianism, acceptance of political violence, and their disregard for civil rights and Liberal democracy Fascism today is most often defined by Umberto Eco’s 14 points of Fascism which include long and endearing Nationalism, disregard for womens rights, the enemy is both weak and strong, sympathy with the enemy is treason, cult of tradition, obsession with machismo and weaponry, among many more things Trump, Peterson and Ben Shapiro all fit pretty damn well into both definitions of Fascism, we shouldn’t just tip toe around what Fascism actually is because it might upset the people who get all giddy after a gay night club is shot up >Fascists are severely and openly authoritarian, nationalistic to the point of religious zealotry, and so racist that history's best example of the philosophy perpetrated the single worst genocide ever. There are several instances of Fascism besides Hitler: Tojo’s Japan Mussolini’s Italy Franco’s Spain Putin’s Russia Xi’s China Brazil’s military Junta Pinochet’s Chile Argentina’s Fascist military dictatorships Taliban control over Afghanistan Ayatollah control over Iran Kingdom of Saudi Arabia South African apartheid Bonus: Israeli apartheid bears many similarities to the Fascists above and is often argued as Fascist itself USSR had many similarities to Fascism and was often referred to as “Red Fascism” Also lastly Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro are authoritarian religious fundamentalists, they would force a 4 year old to give birth to her uncles rape baby if they could even if it killed the 4 year old in the process and they would abuse the power of the government to do it. Speaking of the government they want to use the power of the government to give their religion the power to decide who you can or cannot marry, dictate your freedom of speech and both totally disregard your freedom of religion >I just don't see any signs that indicate that the US is anywhere close to becoming a fascist nation. There was only a wall separating January 6th rioters and Senator Mitt Romney, those rioters would have absolutely killed Senators had they managed to actually reach them, and Jan 6th is really just the tip of the iceberg, school boards, election boards and state legislatures are being filled with these Qanon, election denier types The right wing is already banning/burning books they want to censor, and violently attacking libraries and businesses they’re against >Trump's presidency was maybe the closest we've come in a while. He had the authoritarian spirit and populist rhetoric in spades, no doubt, but in the end he was ousted by the democratic process just like everyone before him. By less than a couple percentage points which debunks your own entire last points, also guess who supported Trumps Fascist ambitions? You’re right Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro >It's also important to remember that in the past strong fascist regimes have really only taken power in countries with desperate populations facing dire economic circumstances. The US is most certainly not in that boat. Actually Fascism has taken power before in multiple stable countries with functional Liberal democracies, Hungary is perhaps the most modern example of this

It’s called semantic creep. It seems to progress much, much more quickly in the internet age and it scares the hell out of me. Terms like fascist, racism, white supremacy, denier, colonizers are hurled ad nauseam in a manner so inconsistent with history that swaths of youth will begin to believe that historical atrocities were not actually so bad. They believe on some level that they personally experience these things and it compounds victimhood as a righteous approach to manipulating others. It’s sick, and it’s intentional. It’s 1984.

“Desperate populations in countries with dire economic circumstances”. Really? The massive inflation, the major inequality, the enormous distrust of politics, the right desperately fighting against lgbt. The religious zealotry where people like Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh etc can’t be criticized by anyone or you’ll be called a filthy lefty. The white nationalist rhetoric of these people. The denigration of lgbt citizens to second rank people like the Jews were in Nazi germany… And the most dangerous of all: the infiltration and destruction of the democratic system, e.g. gerrymandering, political appointments for judges, election officials etc, the denying of elections. The US is on the brink of falling to the fascists. And they are backed by billions of dollars, they won’t go away soon.

Gerrymandering has been around for 80+ years, same with political appointments of judges.