Sorry but complaining about things like this and calling it fascism or end of the world or whatever looks like a joke or someone doing hysterics and not remotely anything to be taken seriously.

They didn't call it an end to the world; they claimed that attempts to subvert democracy are fascistic.

Where's the hyperbole?

> they claimed that attempts to subvert democracy are fascistic

> Where's the hyperbole?

Fascism was highly ideological – Mussolini wrote a whole book explaining his ideology – The Doctrine of Fascism - partially ghostwritten by the Italian philosopher Giovanni Gentile. It contained specific doctrines, such as the primacy of the State.

While Nazism is often equated with fascism, it had a different ideological flavour, with a much heavier emphasis on race. Still, while the ideology was different, the strong emphasis on ideology remained – you can read all about it in Mein Kampf (I tried to read it once, it was so boring I fell asleep), in Hitler's speeches, in the works of his various acolytes.

Trump's ideology isn't fascism. Trump doesn't have an ideology. All he really believes in is his own personal power. Ideas aren't really that important to him. So, I'm not saying that various things he did weren't bad, but they weren't fascist. Calling them fascist is definitely inaccurate, and maybe even hyperbolic.

Instead of making up your own strict, carefully selected, and historically inaccurate definition (no historic fascists ever cared about ideology as anything other than a pretext for their authoritarianism.) I'd recommend reading up on this, just making things up as you go along isn't a great way to approach this particular topic. There's plenty you could read, though I'd recommend starting with Eco's Ur-Fascism as a bridge to start learning about the topic. There's more current work that's worth reading, but since you aren't familiar with any of it I'd recommend starting with the light material, it's more approachable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur-Fascism

This list not much better than citing some 60s revolutionary group about how "society/schools/corporations/media/religion/academia are all fascist, man".

> no historic fascists ever cared about ideology as anything other than a pretext for their authoritarianism

On the contrary, Hitler's ideology of racist nationalism and antisemitism wasn't just some "pretext for authoritarianism"–he had convinced himself it was the truth.

> I'd recommend reading up on this, just making things up as you go along isn't a great way to approach this particular topic

I don't think this response is really in the spirit of the HN guidelines, [0] especially the part which says "Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes."

> Eco's Ur-Fascism

That's just one scholar's opinions among many. There is a lack of scholarly consensus on how to define "fascism"–as the noted historian of Nazi Germany Ian Kershaw once wrote, "trying to define 'fascism' is like trying to nail jelly to the wall".

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

One of the Nazi slogans was "we think with our blood," and while Mussolini wrote ideological tracts when he was transitioning from being a young socialist, that ideology was immediately discarded once he took power. Right-wing authoritarian movements aren't ideological, and especially not the fascists. The fact that you tried to claim that fascism was ideological made me assume you had very limited knowledge. our response confirms that you aren't as familiar as you imagine, I'd really recommend you read up a lot more, especially in a time of rising global right-wing authoritarianism.

> made me assume you had very limited knowledge. our response confirms that you aren't as familiar as you imagine, I'd really recommend you read up a lot more

Do you realise how condescending you sound? You aren’t trying to have a conversation, you are just lecturing. No thank you

Well, calling complaints about the legitimacy of election results "attempts to subvert democracy" is hyperbole.

Aren't those the very opposite - attempts to uphold democracy? (even if misguided and there was no fraud)?

In general, anybody that believes that somebody like Trump would have subverted democracy and established some authoritarian rule, is beyond hyperbole.

Attempting to subvert democracy would not look like asking legitimate questions about the election results.

It would probably look something more like calling a Secretary of State to get them to change the election results.

Or to ask the Vice President to count the electoral votes incorrectly. You know. Things that we know actually happened.

1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2%80%93Raffensperger_ph...

2 - https://www.factcheck.org/2023/08/what-trump-asked-of-pence/

If Trump had simply called for investigations into the legitimacy of the election or requested recounts then yes I'd agree.

Putting together a slate of false electors, asking the VP to certify them, or calling states and asking them to find more votes however is not that.

> Sorry but complaining about things like this and calling it fascism

Complaining about the president trying to prevent the peaceful transfer of power by getting his vice president to block the results "looks like a joke" to you???

I really hope that you can only say that because his plan failed.

>Sorry but complaining about things like this and calling it fascism or end of the world or whatever looks like a joke

Sorry but denying the reality of the current GOP's open efforts to subvert democracy while they speak openly of sedition and overthrowing democracy really makes you look like a fascist apologist. At CPAC ending democracy was the buzz among attendant, Posobiec got applause for saying it was time to end democracy in America.