[Den_VR]

It’s always weird to me how when I try to talk about what fascism means to antifascists they go silent and assume I’m somehow pro-fascist. I’m pro-“Liberty and Justice for all.”

I am also an engineer: One that sees poorly defined requirements, and not a fan of authoritarianism.

[immibis]

It could be because 99.99% of people who decide to get into arguments about what fascism is turn out to be fascists. I believe it's called "sealioning": stalling actual discussion and wasting time of your opponents by endlessly asking basic questions politely.

[Den_VR]

Sounds like people playing it fast and loose with the term fascist. Or maybe overloading the term. And that’s a big problem, not only does it create an in-group / out-group divergence in language but it is the foundation of an ideological motte & bailey.

[immibis]

Do you think it's possible that people get called fascists by antifascists because they are actually fascists?

How do you define a fascist? I'd say followers of fascism are fascists. Perhaps you think only the ones in power, actually doing the fascism, count as fascists. That would be a mere semantic difference.

[Den_VR]

I’ve seen of accusations of fascism levied on all sorts that do not believe in: authoritarian political ideology that seeks a centralized, dictatorial government, suppresses dissent and opposition, ultranationalism promoting the supremacy of one group over others, and rejecting democratic institutions and liberal freedoms.

I suppose you can pick your poison, either condemn an innocent so no guilty escape or the opposite. But in that condemnation I often see: authoritarian political ideology that seeks a centralized, dictatorial government, suppresses dissent and opposition, rejecting liberal freedoms. And they self identify as antifascism. Its not a new thing, “horseshoe theory” has been around for ages.

I think we can collectively do better in combating trends towards fascism and its ilk than that. But not without understanding the problem, and the context in which it rests.

[immibis]

And you identify the paradox of tolerance, almost.

Killing people is bad, but Adolf Hitler is bad. So is it okay to kill Adolf Hitler, or would that make you as bad as him?

What if you were sent back in time, to before he did the bad things?

This is the extreme version of the "antifascist is fascist" debate. In the current time most of the bad people are not Adolf Hitler and we don't kill them and we aren't even 100% certain they'll be bad because we don't have time machines (only pattern recognition), but the same moral quandaries apply mutatis mutandis.

Some questions don't have simple answers. And it's better to at least acknowledge that, than to assert a particular simple answer, as a defense mechanism to allow yourself to continue believing there is always one.

[Den_VR]

The “paradox of intolerance” is bullshit that makes a nice cartoon. It embraces a false dichotomy