In the eyes of the neoliberal, you're only supposed to use identity politics to attack your enemy, not as a means of stating basic facts such as she's Italy's first female PM.

Does criticizing someone because they’re a fascist count as identity politics these days?

I think ID Pol only includes using ones race, sex, gender, sexual orientation as proof of sound ideology and as a defense when criticized. Saying fascist and communist is a blanket insult to one's enemies, often heard in a screaming tone.

In her case, though, she’s literally been involved in neo-fascist politics since she was a teenager. She’s spoken glowingly about Mussolini and Almirante. Maybe it would be more accurate to call her a neo-fascist, but regardless, it’s not hyperbole.

nit: she is the head of the party that received most votes. She will probably be prime minister, but for now no government was proposed to the president, even the new parliament will not start for another week

Is her gender supposed to make her bigoted beliefs somehow less objectionable and terrifying?

> This is the democratically elected head of a state.

No, just a democratically elected member of Parliament. The head of state is the president, elected by the Parliament. That president picks a prime minister which needs to be approved by the parliament.

> Their first female PM.

Not yet. The Italian president has yet to name a PM candidate.

This is the personification of the “ackchyually” meme

https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/021/665/DpQ...

You may want to turn off the MSNBC, step outside and get some fresh air

I’ve never watched MSNBC outside of on silent in an airport bar. Your comment is unhelpful.

What you are saying basically amounts to "My political opponents are Nazis and so is anyone who associates with them, so they should all be silenced."

And yet you're not taking the extreme position there. Interesting how that works.

Its the only form of hate that's still acceptable. Ascribing the worst possible motives to the people you disagree with.

Sometimes it's ascribing the worst possible motive to someone you disagree with - sometimes you disagree with someone who has the worst possible motives. You're saying it's the former, I'm saying recently we've seen a lot of the latter.

Maybe look at the numbers, if 50% plus have the "worst possible motives" then maybe its the former.

63% of the italian population turned up to vote. Of those 63%, just 26% voted for georgia melani’s party. She has a mandate from 16.4% of italians (26% of 63%).

Next you’ll be defending putin, you know he wins in a landslide every election right?

Why would I defend Putin?

I'm guessing those numbers are fairly typical for the ruling party in Italy where elections are typically fairly fragmented and chaotic. So that result is likely just as legitimate as any previous result.

I'm also guessing the overwhelming majority of people that voted in this election aren't nazis.

By your “look at the numbers, 50%” logic, putin is probably good (77% of the vote), and italy could easily have elected a fascist (26% of the vote or 16% of the population).

Turns out the “numbers” aren’t a very good indicator. I’d suggest we should look to what they say for signs of autocratic, kleptocratic, fascist, or nazi ideas.

As far as I'm aware, Italy has free and fair elections and Russia doesnt so apples, oranges etc

As to whether she is a "fascist" (your word) I'II wait and see. I certainly wont pay any attention to the predictable left-wing, media-accelerated hyperbole.

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with:

1. The premise that ideologies exist in the world that are so extreme and violent in their nature that they should receive zero tolerance (e.g. nazism, fascism).

2. The premise that people who tolerate an ideology are tainted by that association.

3. That Georgia Meloni is a fascist.

Because 1 and 2 are not extremist views. They're held quite widely, and I don't think there are many people who believe you should sit down and listen when a nazi talks.

You say that my view is "My political opponents are Nazis" - but that's not what I've said at all. I believe that nazis are nazis, fascists are fascist, and these SPECIFIC ideas are beyond tolerance. Not just any idea I disagree with - there are plenty of ideas that I am politically opposed to that I strongly disagree with but I will gladly tolerate. Just not core premises like "do these people deserve to live" or "do these people deserve dignity".