[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.

[dumpsterdiver]

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

> they threatened Google when they didn't immediately rename the Gulf of Mexico to the "Gulf of America" on their maps

I don’t want to downplay the government pressure you cited in your second example, so I’ll start by acknowledging - that example, as stated, does indeed look like government overreach to me. It doesn’t have anything to do with what I said though.

The stance I was taking is that renaming your own “cool kids” club while you’re in a position to effectively do that - does not amount to Fascism, or anything close to it. No one else is in that club except them, and none of them will be in it later. The moniker will only stick if next group of cool kids carry it.

An important part of remaining credible (imo) is being able to support a point directly. When someone reaches for evidence that isn’t directly relevant to prove a point (e.g. Group A performed action B and it was bad, so if Group A performs action C it must be equally as bad), that’s a clear sign of a weak argument. That’s all I’m saying. I’m not trying to stick up for anyone, I’m just asking for stronger arguments.

[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?

[krapp]

No.

[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.