[tmountain]

I have concerns about the authoritarian tendencies of the current admin, but I think the word "fascism" should be avoided in these types of discussions, as it's such a loaded term that it's hard to know exactly what's implied. The main risks I see are the erosion of democratic norms (weakening of core institutions) and a reduced access to due process, particularly for non-citizens. You see this in ICE deportations to offshore prisons without any clear indication of what happens next. Threats to invade territories for which the U.S. has no basis for occupation (i.e., Greenland and Panama) further raise concerns. As well as use of federal force against protesters, targeting dissent and media pressure (threats to revoke broadcast licenses), surveillance and visa revocations used for political gains, and purges and restructuring of law enforcement. The list could go on, but the threats are real.

[watwut]

How are they NOT fascists? They match pretty much any definition of that word.

It is easy to know what is implied. Issue is emotional - people do not want to admit that yes, these are fascists.

[tmountain]

Fascism is historically loaded and collapses debate. It's a binary label. Speaking in absolutes makes it harder to have productive conversations.

[graemep]

Given the difficulties in defining fascism I very much doubt anyone matches "any definition". Fascism is not a coherent ideology, and there are no common beliefs that can be used to define fascism that do not also apply to people who are definitely not fascists - e.g. dictatorship,cult of personality, etc. also apply to lots of communist movements.