I have concerns about the authoritarian tendencies of the current admin, but I think the word "fascism" should be avoided in these types of discussions, as it's such a loaded term that it's hard to know exactly what's implied. The main risks I see are the erosion of democratic norms (weakening of core institutions) and a reduced access to due process, particularly for non-citizens. You see this in ICE deportations to offshore prisons without any clear indication of what happens next. Threats to invade territories for which the U.S. has no basis for occupation (i.e., Greenland and Panama) further raise concerns. As well as use of federal force against protesters, targeting dissent and media pressure (threats to revoke broadcast licenses), surveillance and visa revocations used for political gains, and purges and restructuring of law enforcement. The list could go on, but the threats are real.

How are they NOT fascists? They match pretty much any definition of that word.

It is easy to know what is implied. Issue is emotional - people do not want to admit that yes, these are fascists.

Fascism is historically loaded and collapses debate. It's a binary label. Speaking in absolutes makes it harder to have productive conversations.

It is no more historically loaded them any other name for a movement or a political philosophy. The debate collapses because people refuse to name things what they actually are. Not just with refusal to engage with the word fascism. There is this persistent tendency to euphemism away everything going on the right, to sane wash, to make it sounds nicer.

> Speaking in absolutes makes it harder to have productive conversations.

We lack productive conversations due to pressure to not call things what they are. The problem is not that fascism is loaded word. The problem is that when we use it, it becomes harder to pretend and equally blame imaginary both sides.

I guess it depends on your objectives when engaging with others on these topics. If you're just trying to foment unhappiness in an echo chamber, then you can use whatever vocabulary feels accurate, but people tend to shutdown when they hear trigger words like fascism. If you actually want to talk to someone that may not have the same viewpoint as you and have a chance of a productive conversation, it's better to use less loaded language.

I think that you are not listening to what they say, it is as simple as that. You want to be their friend, to dont want to take them seriously.

> people tend to shutdown when they hear trigger words like fascism

Also, it is objectively not true they shutdown. There is nothing shutdown about current conservatives and republicans. They are loudly and actively working on their project. They are not shy afraid to talk ... instead people like you are unwilling to listen to what they are saying again and again.

Either that or pretending to not listen and focusing on trying to make their opposition shut up.

> productive conversation, it's better to use less loaded language.

Do you want productive conversation or you simply want the rest of us help them and pretend they are actually not fascists? Productive conversation and middle ground between democracy and fascism is authoritarian dictatorship and a lot of victims.

Given the difficulties in defining fascism I very much doubt anyone matches "any definition". Fascism is not a coherent ideology, and there are no common beliefs that can be used to define fascism that do not also apply to people who are definitely not fascists - e.g. dictatorship,cult of personality, etc. also apply to lots of communist movements.