The person they were responding to specifically referenced Trump and modern Republicans. My point does not require Republicans having kept the same ideals throughout many decades of time. The 80’s were almost half a damn century ago.

Would you tolerate the Taliban in your country? If the answer is no, then you wouldn’t “tolerate” christofascists either.

They know, guy. Fascists have stopped being afraid of the label except in terms of scaring the “centrists,” but they don’t mind that we know they’re fascists.

Anti-antifa does not make one fascist. Britain and America were anti-Antifa and made sure they regained no power in the early days of the BDR. You might disagree with Western, anti-socialist and anticommunist politics, but they were decidedly not fascist.

This is what I mean. A political ax to grind and a bunch of word games.

Thanks, I appreciate your response. But don’t worry. I am here to help out FOSS software, and because I believe in the Lemmy project.

I am perfectly happy to share my honest opinions and be downvoted. That’s part of being part of a community.

At any case, to respond more precisely to what you were saying. I will read the Umberto Eco essay at some point (sorry, its long and I’m busy). Nevertheless, I feel as though a redefinition of the term clearly has a political motivation behind it. Why not simply call right wing Christians by another name? I feel the word fascist is used because of its historical connotation and because it helps people with a far-left agenda get what they want. It’s an effective strategy because conservatives end up defending themselves and trying go prove they’re not Hitler rather than talking about something a bit more substantive.

It’s thrown around a lot now because it’s apt. And the Republicans need to rely on it more and more as people realize the truth to the capitalist propaganda and they can’t keep in power using BS like trickle down economics. People are understanding that equality isn’t a part of what Republicans are interested in, so they need to appeal to the people who aren’t interested in equality.

The rich are one group that benefits from inequality but are outnumbered by the poor, so that leaves people who believe in fascist ideals, like one race is better than others, or gender, or gender preference, or some other trait that means they can feel superior without needing to do anything that sets them apart.

Which might have been at the root of why people were willing to believe that bullshit that favoured the ruling class in the first place because my own reaction to “trickle down economics” the first time I heard of it was that it was fucking stupid. I still don’t see many people pointing out that even if it did work, it implied that some people deserve the bulk of resources to pass through their hands and be used to get labour and other goods from those it “trickles down” to.

I’d argue that the American dream itself was fascist, at least the versions that have everyone aspiring to be billionaires. The Confederacy was fascist, existing purely because they thought that some men should be able to own others outright.

Yes, you are right. I meant Anglo-Saxon in a more colloquial sense

They’re the ones that keep talking about how they used to not be America and “threatening” to secede.

At this point I’m not sure we shouldn’t kick them out.

Maybe give the land back to Mexico?

But isn’t Texas 'Merican?