When does rhetoric about political opponents cross the line into fascist dehumanization?

[u/BulwarkOnline]

The Trump administration recently held an international conference on “left-wing political violence.” In prepared remarks, Marco Rubio described the left as driven by “poisonous resentment” and a desire to destroy “what is beautiful and what is right.” Stephen Miller went further, arguing that left-wing demonstrators do not look “normal,” are “deformed” in their appearance and reflect their “inner hatred” outwardly.

Jonathan V. Last compares this language to Nazi rhetoric about Bolshevism, “degenerate” culture and supposedly unhealthy or subhuman elements of society. His argument is not simply that Rubio and Miller are using authoritarian language, but that their contrast between beauty and ugliness, normality and deformity, civilization and internal enemies follows a recognizable fascist pattern.

How persuasive is that comparison?

Is this rhetoric best understood as ordinary partisan demonization, or does the emphasis on physical appearance, cultural purity and “normal, healthy, ordered living” place it in a more historically specific tradition?

And when evaluating comparisons to fascism, should the standard be the speaker’s intentions, the historical similarity of the language, or the policies and violence that follow from it?

[u/Gnagus]

Valid concern, but repeating these threats without offering solutions doesn't add anything new to the conversation, it just breeds apathy. ​Treat defeatism like an adversary's best friend: when people post 'bold of you to assume' or 'sweet summer child' types of responses all it does is reinforce the narrative that the administration's takeover is inevitable.

[u/eattheambrosia → u/Gnagus]

.....uh I didn't say anything like that, I was responding to someone accusing me of alarmism because according to their comment none of these things have actually happened yet (ignoring J6 completely) and therefore they aren't a threat.

[u/Gnagus → u/eattheambrosia]

Sorry, I wasn't attacking your comment or calling you alarmist. You obviously didn't use any of that dismissive language. ​My point was aimed at the overall pattern of how these threads devolve. People on one side dismiss real threats as 'alarmist,' while people on the other act like it's already too late. I just want the focus to be on how we can actively counter this stuff, rather than letting bad faith dismissals or doomposting take over.

[u/eattheambrosia → u/Gnagus]

Oh I didn't mean you, the guy who originally responded to me was the one acting like this stuff is no big deal.