[dumpsterdiver]

> All that matters is that everyone calls it the Department of War, and regards it as such, which everyone does.

What you just described is consensus, and framing it as fascism damages the credibility of your stance. There are better arguments to make, which don’t require framing a label update as oppression.

[RIMR]

The president has no authority to rename the Department of Defense, but he and his administration demand consensus under the threat of legal consequences.

Just as one example, they threatened Google when they didn't immediately rename the Gulf of Mexico to the "Gulf of America" on their maps. Other companies now follow their illegal guidance because they know that they will be threatened too if they don't comply.

There is a word for when the government uses threats to enforce illegal referendums. That word is "Fascism". Denying this is irresponsible, especially in the context of this situation, where the Government is threatening to force a private company to provide services that it doesn't currently provide.

[krapp]

I'm not framing consensus as fascism, I'm pointing out what the consensus is within the current fascist framework, and that consensus is that Congress doesn't make the rules anymore. And that consensus is shared by Congress itself.

[scottyah]

So anyone who doesn't mind the name going back to DoW is fascist?

[jibal]

Being honest increases credibility, not damages it.

> framing a label update as oppression

That strawman damages credibility.

[vibeprofessor]

true, if everything is 'fascism' then nothing is

[thatswrong0]

https://archive.ph/YSAWU

Except this administration is certainly fascist, and the renaming is yet another facet of it. That article goes through it point by point.