⚠️ This post has been marked as offensive.
Yep, I'm about a 6.
Sort of average.
Sort of moderate.
Though I also accept everyone else's sincere opinions.
So just a moderate.
I mean, I could go to a random trans person I don't know, ask them for their pronouns, tell them transwomen are women, wait 5 minutes, tell them the US should annex Canada, and they will think I'm a fascist over it. I ran this experiment 4 times and 100% of the time, this is what happened.
That makes you a fascist then according to the modern left. Embrace it.
This reminds me of the time that Mayor McCheese® overtook the Board and started their own dictatorial regime as the newly christened Burger Czar®. that shit was crazy. he kept on going on about this bullshit friend enemy distinction and the "enemy within" or whatever. he eventually settled on an ultimate target: late night comedy hosts. they kept on making fun of how mcdonalds was exploitative and how a single burger satisfied 3 non americans' daily caloric intake. so he unleashed his secret weapon: getting the government to cancel their funding unless they fellated mcdonalds 247. many did. they talked about how cool mcdonalds was and how it didnt actually matter that the ice cream machines were broken or that their mascot looked like a creature youd fight in Doom. the whole thing came crashing down when we were like wait, Mayor McCheese® is a burger. why dont we just eat him?
Anyway thats why we dont have the mayor anymore. In case anyone was wondering
Eat Fresh!®
-FakeMcDonalds
In terms of definition, any authoritative body or individual is fascist to some degree. So the left is as fascist as the right even though their political ideology may be contrary.
Such is the inevitability of a two sided argument.
And two sidedness is what constitutes an argument.
I would suggest that "fascism" has come to chiefly represent the level of brutality it takes to enforce a government and a governing ideology.
This is just silly.
The left doesn’t call Trump supporters fascists because of edgy humor, they call them fascists because they support a fascist.
Here’s a real list of what fascism entails;
Authoritarianism - Trump doesn’t believe in any check on his power and literally tried to steal an election
Charismatic leader with a cult like following
Demonization/Scapegoating of the “other” (perhaps MAGA’s most prominent trait)
Glorification of force (pardons J6 rioters, celebrates “being tough” on everyone from criminals to illegals i.e. ‘Aligator Alcatraz’, loves watching ICE smash windows of illegals, military parades)
Suppression of dissent (sues 60 Minutes for a routine edit, locks up students for protesting or writing an unfavorable editorial, withholds funding from Harvard and other universities who don’t do what they say, gleeful about getting Stephen Colbert fired, fires the BLS commissioner for reporting unfavorable job numbers)
That is what fascism is, and Trump is an extreme example in every category. If you support him, you are a fascist, full stop.
I'm not a Trump supporter. But people called me fascist over supporting Israel (not on genocide, but because they built desalination plants). The person that called me fascist over something with Israel wasn't angry at Israel for killing kids like a normal person, but they were mad at them for building big devices that clean water.
I am pro clean water; if that makes me a fascist, then get me a Mussolini flag at Wal mart.
ah. i see why they called you that. the problem is that instead of listening to Big Water you should have bought a coke instead. and while you were there maybe some fries and a burger. and then maybe a McFlurry. you know. treat yourself.
-FakeMcDonalds
It’s a tired tactic replying to each individual example and pretending like those are the only examples and pretending that each one exists in isolation. Fascism, like any other political ideology, is broad so it cannot be established by any individual example. You need to look at the greater picture, if you’re unwilling to do that then that’s your business. You do not need to be in tune with reality if you don’t want to, but it will still be there.
Authoritarianism: Basically, being an electoral sore loser and getting violent with it. The left called Trump fascist before Jan 6, so it's not the reason they were calling him fascist in 2018.
While there was plenty of evidence available in 2018 that Trump was a fascist, that is irrelevant. When we form a belief we do so based on the best evidence available to us, and we update our beliefs as better information comes in, so in 2025 it is grossly disingenuous to argue based only on what we knew in 2018.
To the first point, characterizing Trump’s post election actions as “being a sure loser” is also grossly disingenuous. The man spent months spreading the lie that the election was stolen, called the mob to DC, incited them to attack the Capitol, then did nothing for 187 minutes while the US Capitol was overrun. Along with everything else, he went far, far beyond being a sore loser, that’s trying to steal an election.
Do you dispute Trump is an authoritarian? Yes or No?
What's wrong with being charismatic and having a cult following
What’s wrong with it is that democratic governance is supposed to be about representatives of the people working on behalf of the people, not the people working on behalf of their elected leaders.
In a democracy, you’re supposed to challenge your leaders, hold them to account, and demand results. Trumps cult following couldn’t care less about any of that, they defend him no matter what he does. We just got the worst jobs report since the pandemic. Is the base furious being that Trump was supposed to be the guy who was going to fix everything and is now making it worse? No, he blamed the person who released the report, something no one has ever done, and now the base is following suit. Because in a cult reality is whatever the cult leader says.
Demonizing the "other": How does MAGA do this to left wingers where it's not vice versa? The closest thing I can think of is immigration; but Harris and Obama deported more people than Trump did (more harmless people without papers as well). Trump is the honest deporter.
Firstly, the whole “Obama deported more people” is a tired nonsensical retort. Retire it. The issue isn’t how many people got deported, it’s how Trump is going about doing it. Obama didn’t instruct ICE to go grab illegals working on farms and at Home Depot’s. He didn’t grab them right out of their immigration hearings. He didn’t pretend abuelitas were part of MS13. He didn’t send people to foreign prisons in blatant and egregious violation of their due process. He didn’t ignore court orders. He didn’t build concentration camps to store all of these people, many of which have done nothing wrong. And he didn’t pretend every illegal immigrant was a violent criminal as an excuse to carry out all of this.
That’s what’s at issue here.
Fascism is an ideology, not a policy position. The question isn’t your policy, it’s what’s driving your policy. One of, if not the core feature of fascism is turning a society against itself through scapegoating. Don’t like how your life is turning out? It’s because of those immigrants. It’s because of those gay and trans people. It’s because of those liberal cities. If Trump did not have scapegoating he would have nothing.
Glorification of force/suppression of dissent: The left called Trump fascist before Jan 6 and before he got a Harvard professor fired over her being anti Zionist.
Same point, so what? Even if you had a point here and there were not tons of examples pre Jan 6th we could use, your argument is at best that we were eventually proven right.
So instead of doing this thing where you just pretend the examples I gave are the only examples out there and pretend they’re not serious at all, not with argument but with characterization, let me just ask - Do you believe Trump is a fascist? Yes or No? Do you accept my criteria as a good representation of what fascism is?
If no and then yes, please pick one of the categories and we’ll focus on that one.
-> Fascism, like any other political ideology, is broad so it cannot be established by any individual example.
This is a euphemism for, "I can't define it but I'm going to use the term anyway to disparage the right because it's scary". Scary but legal labels don't matter anymore.
->While there was plenty of evidence available in 2018 that Trump was a fascist, that is irrelevant.
What was the 1st piece of evidence that Trump was a fascist?
->Along with everything else, he went far, far beyond being a sore loser, that’s trying to steal an election.
Fair; we can say militant sore loser.
->Do you dispute Trump is an authoritarian? Yes or No?
I do not, BUT I think every politician is at least a little bit authoritarian. I mean, they are authority.
->In a democracy, you’re supposed to challenge your leaders, hold them to account, and demand results. Trumps cult following couldn’t care less about any of that, they defend him no matter what he does.
They defend him no matter what (and they shouldn't). But this would be an issue with Trump's base, not Trump himself.
->Obama didn’t instruct ICE to go grab illegals working on farms and at Home Depot’s. He didn’t grab them right out of their immigration hearings. He didn’t pretend abuelitas were part of MS13. He didn’t send people to foreign prisons in blatant and egregious violation of their due process. He didn’t ignore court orders. He didn’t build concentration camps to store all of these people, many of which have done nothing wrong. And he didn’t pretend every illegal immigrant was a violent criminal as an excuse to carry out all of this.
All deportations are equally bad. If someone murders, then just kill them. If someone doesn't have their papers and is minding their own business, then let them be.
Numbers matter; stories don't; everyone has a story.
->One of, if not the core feature of fascism is turning a society against itself through scapegoating.
So it's mere rhetoric then, not actual policy. Rhetoric is only useful on people that don't do their research and operate on emotion/stupidiy (synonyms).
->Even if you had a point here and there were not tons of examples pre Jan 6th we could use, your argument is at best that we were eventually proven right.
What my point was trying to hint at is that the left basically, "cries wolf" at fascism to where I can't believe them if they are genuine about it. They called Trump a racist over a border wall (when it was built by Bush and they didn't label him a fascist over it). It's billionaire media hype. That's all that it is.
->
I'm guessing your definition is:
.
You could argue Christianity and Islam are fascist for this. So because of that, I don't think your definition of fascism is good unless you would argue that Christians and Muslims are fascists. Jesus and Mohammod were charismatic leaders. They were also pretty authoritarian, they demonized and suppressed dissent, and both were spread violently (glorification of force) when the religions were in their purest form.
Here’s a real list of what fascism entails;
Authoritarianism - Trump doesn’t believe in any check on his power and literally tried to steal an election
Charismatic leader with a cult like following
Demonization/Scapegoating of the “other” (perhaps MAGA’s most prominent trait)
Glorification of force (pardons J6 rioters, celebrates “being tough” on everyone from criminals to illegals i.e. ‘Aligator Alcatraz’, loves watching ICE smash windows of illegals, military parades)
Suppression of dissent (sues 60 Minutes for a routine edit, locks up students for protesting or writing an unfavorable editorial, withholds funding from Harvard and other universities who don’t do what they say, gleeful about getting Stephen Colbert fired, fires the BLS commissioner for reporting unfavorable job numbers)
First, this is a silly Umbarto Eco-esque definition of fascism. A regime can be simultaneously authoritarian and not fascist, unless you think that fascism just means "mean dictatorship".
The first principle of fascism is the maxim "All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state." If there's any sphere of society that a mass movement wants to lessen government interference over, said movement probably isn't fascist, even if it is authoritarian and/or autocratic.
Certainly this movement wouldn't tolerate the idea of homeschooling, or of churches that operate free of state control and don't pay taxes, or making health decisions for yourself and your children contrary to what state-employed experts recommend.
And assuming that Trumpism is generically authoritarian, the same is true of the contemporary left, evidenced by more anecdotes of canceling, deplatforming, firing, academic expulsion, pulling of books, cancellation of lucrative contracts, doxxing, violent assaults in the streets, and death-threat laden harassment campaigns than could possibly be counted in a lifetime. This is what you get when people embrace black-and-white thinking about their political opponents and come to view winning as more important than anything else. And using slurs like "fascists" to describe one's political opponents does nothing but to perpetuate this mindset.
This is a euphemism for, "I can't define it but I'm going to use the term anyway to disparage the right because it's scary"
Wow, you really don’t understand how any of this works.
Fascism is an ideology, and like all ideologies, it’s not defined by one’s position on any one issue, just as your position on any one issue doesn’t make you a liberal or a conservative. These terms are inherently vague to define, which is why we use tests to measure it, the exact same thing psychologists have to do in order to diagnose you.
What was the 1st piece of evidence that Trump was a fascist?
The day he first announced that he was running for president and called Mexicans criminals and rapists. He showed us then that his campaign was going to be all about scapegoating a particular segment of the population, a central quality of fascism.
I do not, BUT I think every politician is at least a little bit authoritarian.
Everyone has at least once in their life told a lie, does that make everyone a liar?
This is a meaningless way to define terms. The test of when such a label would apply is when the behavior is extreme.
They defend him no matter what (and they shouldn't). But this would be an issue with Trump's base, not Trump himself.
Wrong. While this certainly does apply to MAGA more directly as being a fascist movement, MAGA’s treatment of Trump as the center of their politics is not an accident. This is exactly what Donald Trump wants and demands from anyone who supports him. When any Republican takes a position against him, he doesn’t respond by pleading his case and arguing why he is right and why his position is better for the people he purportedly serves, no, he responds by attacking them personally and threatening to primary them.
In Trumpworld, dissent is unacceptable. Liz Cheney voted with him something like 93% of the time, more than nearly every other Republican in Congress, but she refused to pretend the election was stolen so she was booted out of politics altogether. That’s what cults do, and Trump purposefully facilitates this.
All deportations are equally bad
This is just plain stupid. You might as well argue that all theft is equally bad, so the guy who once stole a candy bar and the guy who professionally robs banks are the same.
Rhetoric is only useful on people that don't do their research and operate on emotion/stupidiy (synonyms).
Yeah, that’s the majority of most societies, and that’s the point.
All of this strong man rhetoric is designed to take advantage of easily gullible and manipulable people, it’s a science and has been proven to work many times over. Have you seriously never thought about why an entire country would go down the path of executing 12 million jews? It’s built into human nature and can be exploited, that’s why fascism and authoritarian experts have been ringing the alarm bells about Trump for years. It’s not to say that he will or even would do the same things as Hitler, but that nothing good comes from going down this path. We’ve seen it many times throughout human history, we are no different.
So it's mere rhetoric then, not actual policy.
The rhetoric is where policy comes from. We just booted 12 million people off of Medicaid to make room for millions more ICE agents to go arrest abuelitas. That doesn’t happen without Donald Trump inciting half the country to think these people picking fruit and cleaning out houses are really all secret MS13 gang bangers.
What my point was trying to hint at is that the left basically, "cries wolf" at fascism to where I can't believe them if they are genuine about it. They called Trump a racist over a border wall (when it was built by Bush and they didn't label him a fascist over it). It's billionaire media hype. That's all that it is.
Instead of assessing the proposition based on your reading of the messengers character, you’d be better served by applying critical thinking.
I'm unsure if he is a fascist. I'm not trying to dodge, but I'm just not sure.
We’ve been talking about this for days now. What’s stopping you from reaching a conclusion?
You could argue Christianity and Islam are fascist for this. So because of that, I don't think your definition of fascism is good unless you would argue that Christians and Muslims are fascists.
If you don’t like my definition you are free to do your own research and offer an alternative.
That aside, fascism is explicitly a political ideology, so I don’t think religious ideology even applies. Regardless, I wouldn’t argue that religions are not fascistic, in fact it kind of makes sense because it explains why the most religious among us are more likely to support Trump. If these ideas have been crammed into them since birth, of course they’re less likely to see a problem with it in real life.
->The day he first announced that he was running for president and called Mexicans criminals and rapists.
So, him calling Mexicans an inaccurate and mean name made him a fascist? If Obama deported more harmless undocumented immigrants than Trump and if I'm Mexican and undocumented, then I'm thinking:
Mean names don't matter if they aren't coupled with mean policy (and in 2016; urban areas and the south west voted more blue than 2012, but mean names don't matter; mean actions do, which is why in 2020, non-tap dancing Hispanics turned out redder than 2016 as the rest of the country shifted blue once they lived through Trump and saw that Obama did it more.). They tended to respect Trump's honesty.
->The test of when such a label would apply is when the behavior is extreme.
I agree. But lets say 0 is as left as you can go and 100 is as right wing as you can go. Lets say 90 or higher is fascist and 10 or lower is communist. Why is it 90 and not 89 or 91? Conversely, why is 10 the communist marker and not 9 or 11? It's an arbitrary line at the end of the day. I'd rather label people's beliefs as, "Pro X" or, "Anti X" very specifically. If someone wants abortion illegal/legal, then I call them Anti (Abortion Legalization), Pro (Abortion Legalization). PAL and ANAL. Doing ANAL reduces abortion.
->When any Republican takes a position against him, he doesn’t respond by pleading his case and arguing why he is right and why his position is better for the people he purportedly serves, no, he responds by attacking them personally and threatening to primary them.
Trump did that with Cheney and Harris did it with RFK. Neither should have kicked them out. But every politician in the DEM or GOP primary that wasn't Trump or Biden/Harris takes a position against them (who's the better nominee). But both Trump and Biden are debate dodgers (ie, they don't defend their positions).
->All deportations are equally bad
This is just plain stupid. You might as well argue that all theft is equally bad, so the guy who once stole a candy bar and the guy who professionally robs banks are the same.
I would argue deporting a mass murderer is the same as deporting a harmless undocumented immigrant; the ladder should be left alone, and the former is useful because they have organs that can be harvested right after beheadings without painkillers to save black people's lives (and really anyone else that needs the organs).
->It’s built into human nature and can be exploited, that’s why fascism and authoritarian experts have been ringing the alarm bells about Trump for years.
How would you remove something like this from human nature? We got to copy Canada's education system. I think if Hitler tried to win in Canada, then he would flop. I know they got free healthcare, but healthcare extends your life; you can have an extremely healthy body and still be an idiot.
->We’ve been talking about this for days now. What’s stopping you from reaching a conclusion?
I'm worried that normies might be classified as fascist. Like, a lot of people were calling Matt Walsh a fascist over him ASKING, "What is a woman?" He wasn't saying, "Murder the transgenders." He wasn't saying, "Bomb San Francisco."
He was asking a question, and people called him a fascist over him asking questions. There was this woman that thought I was a Nazi because I agreed with Israel (and I'm not talking about agreeing with Israel over Palestine, I mean giving Israel credit for building desalination plants). She was talking about desalination plants "stealing water from the fishes". If being pro desalination plants makes me a fascist, then I'm a fascist and so is virtually everybody.
The annoying thing is as much as the left wants the right to call out Nazis, virtually no left winger would call out the crazy woman who argued that desalination plants are depriving fish of their natural recourse (aka water).
->If you don’t like my definition you are free to do your own research and offer an alternative.
My definition of fascist is anyone with at least one right wing opinion (so virtually everyone would be a fascist and I'm fine with being one of them).
->That aside, fascism is explicitly a political ideology, so I don’t think religious ideology even applies.
If Donald Trump tomorrow claimed to be the 2nd coming of Jesus (and used his failed assassination attempt that hit his ear that healed pretty quickly as proof), then MAGA becomes a religion.
There are 2 types of cult leaders:
Religions + personality fads=Cults.
All those people that followed Beyonce; you could argue Beyonce was a personality fad, but she never ran for office. But if she did, then you know there would be a bunch of women that would stand by her no matter what (just like what you see with Trump).
-> Regardless, I wouldn’t argue that religions are not fascistic
Jesus 2000 years ago was leading the Christianity fascist cult. But he died, so his members had kids who didn't take it as seriously as they did, and you pass through several generations, being a member of the Christianity cult is something that you need clubs for.
If Trump claimed to be God, then in 200 years, maybe there will be meetings for people who follow Trumpian Christianity (and the commonalities between Trump's beliefs and Jesus's are irrelevant; the word, "Christian" is in there for marketing pourposes). Lets just say circumisision seems like a very cult like thing to do to babies.
At least Trump's cult doesn't make you bodily suffer to join. Trump's cult has open borders; anyone can join; Jesus'es cult does not.
So, him calling Mexicans an inaccurate and mean name made him a fascist?
You are remarkably thick headed. I’ve already explained numerous times now that no one position or quality makes anyone a fascist. I’ve explained that we’re talking about a broad term that requires multiple tests in order to assess whether any individual meaningfully qualifies. If you’re not interested in understanding how terms such as this work just say so.
Mean names don't matter if they aren't coupled with mean policy
Meaningless opinion, fails to address the significance I’ve already pointed out, and fails to take into account how this is relevant to the actual topic at hand.
First off, it’s yet another demonstration of your lack of seriousness to try and downplay the significance of what Trump did by using childish characterizations over substantive argument. You said you debate for the fun of it, I’m truly wondering what is fun about being mindlessly dismissive at best and disingenuous at worst.
I already explained that Trump’s demonization of Mexicans is a large part of what set the stage for his treatment of South American migrants today. Rhetoric isn’t disconnected from policy, it forms the basis of it. If you really want to educate yourself, review any psychological study on how the usage of terms by political leaders helps to shape a country’s attitude towards the topic. Start by Googling the Overton window and why it moves.
The purpose of pointing all of this out is to further make the point that you cannot reasonably dismiss what Trump said within the context of discussing whether he is a fascist. These terms aren’t just uttered for the fun of it, there’s a purpose. It’s part of a bigger picture, Trump understands intuitively if nothing else what he’s doing there. That, is what makes him a fascist.
lets say 0 is as left as you can go and 100 is as right wing as you can go. Lets say 90 or higher is fascist and 10 or lower is communist. Why is it 90 and not 89 or 91? Conversely, why is 10 the communist marker and not 9 or 11? It's an arbitrary line at the end of the day.
The drinking age is arbitrary, that doesn’t mean we let 4 year olds down shots of tequila.
This ‘arbitrary = bad’ point is only impactful to someone who prefers to think about everything in binary terms. The world doesn’t work that way. If you want to understand it you have to do the work and stop trying to oversimplify everything.
Trump did that with Cheney and Harris did it with RFK. Neither should have kicked them out.
Blatant false equivalence. What Harris “did” to RFK wasn’t remotely similar to what Trump did to Cheney. Trump didn’t just get Cheney kicked out of the party, he attacked her personally, relentlessly, not because of her beliefs but specifically because she defied him. That is something entirely different.
Moreover, Cheney was just one example. With Trump this is how he operates. It is strikingly predictable, and it is that very predictability that makes this a meaningful box to check on the fascism scale. One-offs do not demonstrate an ideology, consistency is what does.
He was asking a question, and people called him a fascist over him asking questions.
Accepting your characterization for the sake of argument… then those people are idiots. That has nothing to do with whether Trump is a fascist.
The annoying thing is as much as the left wants the right to call out Nazis, virtually no left winger would call out the crazy woman who argued that desalination plants are depriving fish of their natural recourse
Irrelevant to whether Trump is a fascist
At least Trump's cult doesn't make you bodily suffer to join.
Not really.
Reading this part reminded me of what I consider to be a useful illustration of the difference between a religion and a cult; In a religion, your savior sacrifices themselves for you. In a cult, you sacrifice yourself for your savior.
This describes Trump and MAGA perfectly. Trump is forever demanding unflinching loyalty, but he is loyal to no one. In Trump world, it’s all about him. The minute you cross him or are no longer useful to him you will be discarded, and if you voted for him he will fight for you only so long as it benefits him.
First, this is a silly Umbarto Eco-esque definition of fascism. A regime can be simultaneously authoritarian and not fascist, unless you think that fascism just means "mean dictatorship".
Perhaps you should read the criteria I provided again. Note that the first checkbox I provided was authoritarianism, followed by other checkboxes. That means authoritarianism is just one element, one test of whether we’re dealing with fascism. So yes, I understand what fascism means and the difference there.
If there's any sphere of society that a mass movement wants to lessen government interference over, said movement probably isn't fascist, even if it is authoritarian and/or autocratic.
Certainly this movement wouldn't tolerate the idea of homeschooling, or of churches that operate free of state control and don't pay taxes, or making health decisions for yourself and your children contrary to what state-employed experts recommend.
MAGA only tolerates these things when they agree with them. “Churches that operate free of state control” is only a value when we’re talking about Christian churches. Let’s see MAGA stand up and fight for the right of a mosque to exist. Making health decisions for yourself and your children? They’re trying to outlaw gender affirming care for minors.
These principals are only espoused when it aligns with their views, which is to say they’re not principals at all.
And assuming that Trumpism is generically authoritarian, the same is true of the contemporary left, evidenced by more anecdotes of canceling, deplatforming, firing, academic expulsion, pulling of books, cancellation of lucrative contracts, doxxing, violent assaults in the streets, and death-threat laden harassment campaigns than could possibly be counted in a lifetime.
This is all categorically different. First of all you can find anecdotes of anything, and if there’s anything the political right loves to do it’s scower the internet for every anecdote they can find so the can bootstrap them into “the left” rather than dealing with typical left wing ideology.
When we’re talking about fascism and authoritarianism, we’re talking about political movements utilizing or attempting to utilize state power for said means. That’s what’s happening on the right, there is no equivalent to this on the left. A bunch of people sitting on their couch or jumping on Twitter deciding that they don’t want to support someone or call them out for expressing horrific views is everyone’s right to freedom of speech and expression. Cancellations only occur when a significant portion of society agrees, that’s called the free market, that’s exactly how the system is supposed to work. Authoritarianism is bad because it defies how the system is supposed to work.
Authoritarianism
Charismatic leader:
Demonization/Scapegoating of the “other” (perhaps MAGA’s most prominent trait):
Glorification of force
Suppression of dissent
Your definition has 5 traits. Are 100% of them required to become a fascist? Or can you have 20% and it still counts as fascist? What % of these traits are required to become a fascist?
->These principals are only espoused when it aligns with their views, which is to say they’re not principals at all.
So then is hypocrisy a tenant of fascism?
->Cancellations only occur when a significant portion of society agrees, that’s called the free market, that’s exactly how the system is supposed to work. Authoritarianism is bad because it defies how the system is supposed to work.
Alright; so you are saying cancel culture is fine as long as it's individuals doing the canceling and not the government? I can respect that standard, but I'm worried that these individuals might elect a government that enacts those viewpoints that they have (they are very strong views).
Trump is like that for the right, but he's the devil we know (and a devil with dementia). Hitler needed a fully function brain to do his genocide; Trump doesn't have that.
Your definition has 5 traits. Are 100% of them required to become a fascist? Or can you have 20% and it still counts as fascist? What % of these traits are required to become a fascist?
You're entire approach to identifying fascism is off. Fascism isn't a black or white issue where one is either a fascist or not a fascist with nothing in between. We're not talking about something like pregnancy with a nice either/or answer, we're talking about what point the term can be used meaningfully.
The first trait (authoritarianism) I would argue is essential, because fascism is basically a category of authoritarianism. None of the other traits would make sense of we took that first one away.
I suppose one of the other traits could be missing in theory, but that would only make the extremeness of the others more blatant to qualify.
While fascism is often thought of as an ideology, I think it's actually better thought of as a strategy (more likely guided by impulse) to achieve authoritarianism. The charisma of the leader is included because that is a crucial element in getting people to turn off their moral compass, which is needed for the other traits to work. Scapegoating is essential and central to fascism, but I think of it as another one of those traits that is a means to the end because it provides the distraction the leader needs to get people to look the other way while their rights are being taken. Suppression of dissent and glorification of violence; again, tactics of intimidation meant to secure the leader's power.
This is why I take issue with all of these attempts to point to random behavior on the other side that might be similar in some way as a means of equivocating. You can find examples of anything if you look hard enough, the question is whether these things are interconnected. It's like the difference between a bunch of random events occurring that produces a certain result, vs those events being part of an orchestrated plot. With Trump all of this is done to serve his ultimate purpose, to maintain power and bolster his ego.
So then is hypocrisy a tenant of fascism?
No, but it is prevalent within fascism. That's how you hide your true motivations, which is necessary when you're trying to get others to go along with the horrific things you are doing.
Alright; so you are saying cancel culture is fine as long as it's individuals doing the canceling and not the government? I can respect that standard, but I'm worried that these individuals might elect a government that enacts those viewpoints that they have
First off all, everyone wants content or people they find objectionable to be cancelled (Colin Kaepernick anyone?) so "those viewpoints" are prevalent within every side, thus you are voting them no matter who you vote for. The difference is whether you are voting for someone who believes in using state power to facilitate it, which is as you eluded to, a very different thing.
This is where it is crucial to understand Wich side actually believes in free speech and which side merely purports to. The side that supports government locking up students for protesting or writing a critical op ed, the side that supports punishing universities for not teaching what the government thinks they should, that punishes law firms for defending the "wrong" clients, that through both lawsuits and government regulation agencies goes after news organizations who report unfavorably about the administration... That's the side who is only pretending here. There is nothing remotely like this on the opposite side.
->You're entire approach to identifying fascism is off. Fascism isn't a black or white issue where one is either a fascist or not a fascist with nothing in between. We're not talking about something like pregnancy with a nice either/or answer, we're talking about what point the term can be used meaningfully.
Meaningfully implies an either/or.
What should happen is a point system. Every trait that can lead to fascism, assign it a certain number of points and if a certain threshold is reached, then it would be facsist.
->First off all, everyone wants content or people they find objectionable to be cancelled (Colin Kaepernick anyone?) so "those viewpoints" are prevalent within every side, thus you are voting them no matter who you vote for.
I voted libertarian in 2020 and 2024; I didn't do that. Let Colin Kaepernick kneel.
->The first trait (authoritarianism) I would argue is essential, because fascism is basically a category of authoritarianism. None of the other traits would make sense of we took that first one away.
->While fascism is often thought of as an ideology, I think it's actually better thought of as a strategy (more likely guided by impulse) to achieve authoritarianism.
So you are saying authoritarianism is a requirement for fascism, but fascism is a gateway to authoritarianism? That's like saying eggs are essential to make a cake while also saying having a cake is a strategy to eventually achieve getting eggs (that came after the cake was produced). It makes no sense.
->The side that supports government locking up students for protesting or writing a critical op ed, the side that supports punishing universities for not teaching what the government thinks they should
If there was a science teacher that wanted to teach about something the government doesn't think they should (ex: transgenderism for either side), then a lot of governments would prosecute them for doing it (usually not by jail, but by firing). Voters become control freaks when their kids get involved; kids are drugs.
Meaningfully implies an either/or.
Meaningfully implies a scale, which is the opposite of an either/or.
You would go on to argue that there should be a scale, which is just baffling. It's like you're arguing just for the sake of arguing. If you recognize the concept of a scale being applied to something like fascism then why do you argue as if we're dealing with an either/or?
So you are saying authoritarianism is a requirement for fascism, but fascism is a gateway to authoritarianism?
No. Authoritarianism is an umbrella term, fascism is a category under that umbrella.
You don't have to be fascist to be an authoritarian, but the traits we see within fascism (charismatic leader, scapegoating, glorification of violence, crushing dissent) are all specifically designed to help the leader achieve and enforce their power.
Why is charisma important? Because it softens the target audience for the other traits.
Why scapegoat? Because it's a very powerful tool in getting people to look the other way while you take their freedoms. It also crates a climate of fear making people more cautious about opposing you.
Why glorify violence? To show people what their fate will be if they cross you.
Why crush dissent? Because widespread criticism strengthens the opposition.
Authoritarianism is in a nutshell, a belief in centralized control. You have to believe in that (making you authoritarian) before you can employ the tactics above to achieve said centralized power.
You're confusion is that you keep thinking of those traits themselves as fascism under my conception, as if they're necessarily tied to it. They're not, what makes them tied to fascism is the purpose of employing them. Scapegoating doesn't make you fascist. Scapegoating as a means of trying to centralize power within yourself or your group is a trait of fascism. The fact that they are all part of the bigger picture is the key to all of this.
If you still don't understand this please read it again, slowly, before responding.
If there was a science teacher that wanted to teach about something the government doesn't think they should (ex: transgenderism for either side), then a lot of governments would prosecute them for doing it (usually not by jail, but by firing).
Anecdotal examples are irrelevant. What I just did was demonstrate a pattern of behavior. That's the part that matters. When one side regularly and predictably engages in tactics like this, only when the other side violates these espoused principals, it demonstrates that they're not principals at all. Espousing these principals is just rhetorical cover for abusive control.
Very Nice
Thanks for letting us know you are a fascist.