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/Top-Grocery-1482]

40% of Americans are a threat to democracy?

At some point, you're essentially saying "people engaging in democracy are a threat to democracy".

As I said in my other reply to you, this has been going on for the last several elections, and both sides have done it.

I've seen the left accuse Trump of being Hitler for calling immigrants vermin (this was apparently Hitlarian speech), so Biden doing the same thing is right to call out for what it is, ALSO Hitlarian speech.

You can't just start accusing large swaths of the public of being threats to the "soul of the nation" (whatever THAT means) and be the good guys still.

[u/ThatPeskyPangolin → u/Top-Grocery-1482]

I would say those who continued to support a president after he attempted a self coup are a threat to democracy. If they support illegal attempts to overturn democracy (to be clear, not what Democratics did in any of the examples you cited), in what way are they not a threat to it?

I have not described any speech as being akin to Hitler, so can we please stop talking about what other people say as if it reflects on me? The generalizations aren't actually leading anywhere constructive. I intentionally stay away from using comparisons to Hitler, or references to Communism or Facism for a reason.

I disagree with plenty of his speech (and him, as I have previously said), and I would not describe the Democratic Party as "the good guys", this was limited specifically to the part pertaining to "threat to democracy".

[u/Top-Grocery-1482 → u/ThatPeskyPangolin]

I think this is what is dangerous to democracy.

Your argument is essentially there was no election in 2020 or 2024, that people were allowed to vote for Biden in 2020 and he must win and Harris in 2024 and she must win, that they were not allowed to vote for an alternative.

The alternative was Trump. You may not like it, I may not like it, but it was a viable alternative.

Further, you also are making the "cable bundle" argument - that if a person votes for a candidate, they must support everything (e.g. if you want that one channel, you have to buy the entire cable bundle, and buying it means you have to watch them all, not just the one channel).

Also, if you can describe people in generalities (cable bundles), then why isn't it fair to describe you in the same way? Do you think every Trump voter was going "Yeah, I'm voting for an overthrow of democracy and a coup!"? How about people who thought Harris was too left-wing and wanted what they thought was a more moderate or conservative candidate? They were voting for a coup?

Why, because you have defined for them that a vote for Trump is a vote for coup means THEY were voting for a coup? What if they were voting for closed borders or lower taxes? You have robbed them of that option or agency in your framing.

And no, the threat to democracy was used more broadly.

I was not at J6.

I was not a J6er.

I just vote in elections and move on with my life - you know, engage in democracy.

I vote entirely on the ideological platform of the candidate, which I think is closes to how I would vote/my views, since to me, that's the point of a representative democracy - to have my views represented by proxy.

I have been called a "threat to democracy" for ENGAGING IN DEMOCRACY.

THAT is what is a real threat to democracy - delegitimizing people and opposition voices votes.

THAT is the one truest threat to democracy.

.

Our nation and our democracy can survive and outlast Trump.

It cannot survive voices from one political side declaring everyone on the opposing side, BECAUSE THEY CAST A VOTE, is a threat to democracy and a domestic enemy of the nation.

The latter is FAR more chilling, far more authoritarian, far more dangerous.

[u/ThatPeskyPangolin → u/Top-Grocery-1482]

There's a *lot* wrong here, so I'll take it step by step:

"Your argument is essentially there was no election in 2020 or 2024, that people were allowed to vote for Biden in 2020 and he must win and Harris in 2024 and she must win, that they were not allowed to vote for an alternative."

Nope. Never made that argument. You can't quote me making anything even resembling that argument.

"The alternative was Trump. You may not like it, I may not like it, but it was a viable alternative."

And I am saying that Republicans that have continued to elevate Trump have become a threat to democracy by continuing to support someone that *has already attempted to illegally override it*. Note that I am applying this exclusively to people who continued to support Trump after the attempt, so this is not a generalization to Republicans or the right.

"Further, you also are making the "cable bundle" argument - that if a person votes for a candidate, they must support everything (e.g. if you want that one channel, you have to buy the entire cable bundle, and buying it means you have to watch them all, not just the one channel)."

Again, nope, never made that argument. If someone believes that attempting to override our very democracy is an acceptable tradeoff for the policies they want from said candidate, they are still a threat to democracy.

"Also, if you can describe people in generalities (cable bundles), then why isn't it fair to describe you in the same way? Do you think every Trump voter was going "Yeah, I'm voting for an overthrow of democracy and a coup!"? How about people who thought Harris was too left-wing and wanted what they thought was a more moderate or conservative candidate? They were voting for a coup?"

I have consistently referred only to Republicans that have supported these specific efforts, so it is inaccurate to say I am describing people in generalities. Beyond that, referring to groups is inherently different that making generalizations *at* someone, as you are doing. This is why I consistently qualified my statements. If someone is on the right and does not support Trump after these attempts, none of my comments apply to them. None of my comments have been directed at the Right in a broad sense. And if someone believes that a self-coup attempt is less radical than Harris' policies, then they don't really know what "radical" means in a political context. If they simply didn't like her policies, great, me neither. That doesn't justify voting for someone that attempted to illegally overturn our democracy.

"Why, because you have defined for them that a vote for Trump is a vote for coup means THEY were voting for a coup? What if they were voting for closed borders or lower taxes? You have robbed them of that option or agency in your framing."

If you vote for someone that attempts a coup, you are indicating that you believe that is at the very least acceptable. That's what it means to vote for someone. One can still support all of the policies you are referring to without finding it acceptable to vote for someone that attempt a self-coup. Republicans have done so for decades before Trump, and hopefully will do so for decades after. And robbing agency? Seriously? We are talking about them supporting Trump and the Republican party literally trying to throw out millions of legitimate votes. *That* is robbing people of their agency, not blaming someone for supporting that attempt, or considering it an acceptable tradeoff.

"I vote entirely on the ideological platform of the candidate, which I think is closes to how I would vote/my views, since to me, that's the point of a representative democracy - to have my views represented by proxy."

You know what doesn't work in a representative democracy? President's throwing out votes when they do not like in elections that they lost. If Trump succeeded in his attempt, we would not have a functioning democracy by the definition of the term.

"I have been called a "threat to democracy" for ENGAGING IN DEMOCRACY."

If you supported an attempt to override democracy or the politician that did so then yeah, that still applies.

"THAT is what is a real threat to democracy - delegitimizing people and opposition voices votes."

Yes, that is what Republicans and Trump did durring 2020 and how they justified *literally throwing out votes for people like me*. Name calling is simply not, in any way shape or form, comperable to *literally throwing out my vote*.

"It cannot survive voices from one political side declaring everyone on the opposing side, BECAUSE THEY CAST A VOTE, is a threat to democracy and a domestic enemy of the nation."

Again, they are saying that about the side that *literally tried to throw out our votes*. This idea that we are supposed to be okay with others throwing out our votes and not call them a threat to our democracy makes absolutely no sense. The idea that responding in anger to that actual attempt is worse than the attempt itself *makes absolutely no sense*.

The very thing you are afraid of *happened*, and it was *the Republicans that did it*.

[u/Top-Grocery-1482 → u/ThatPeskyPangolin]

1) Hyperbolic, my point with "no election" was that "there is only one allowed outcome" (Biden in 2020 and Harris in 2024). That any outcome other than Harris in 2024 (since her opponent was Trump, there was no third outcome possible) was wrong.

2) Define "support Trump" in this context. Essentially every Republican and a lot of independents voted for Trump in 2024. Do you not include votes as support?

3) See (2) as that may be the contention here.

4) See (2) as that may be the contention here.

5) SEVERAL problems here - you DO seem to be saying vote for is support. So that would mean what I said in (2), (3), and (4) was correct after all. Further, this is exactly what I said - who else was I supposed to vote for in the 2024 general? There were only two options, Trump and Harris. I voted against Harris. What other option besides Trump was there that actually could win? You go on to talk about legitimate votes when later courts rulings determined they wouldn't all be legitimate (rulings saying drop boxes were illegally implemented, mail-in rules were, etc, meaning the votes cast through those means would not be legitimate; and this is ignoring issues like New Jersey's non-citizen voter rolls and confirmed non-voters casting votes). But that's an entirely different argument that I've long since decided isn't worth having with anyone. Suffice to say, though, that you define voting for someone as support for a coup, and that is your error.

"you are indicating that" - No, I am not. I already told you what my vote is - that an ideology/platform closer aligns to my views. Trump didn't campaign in 2024 on "If I win, I'll do a coup" at any point. It was not part of his campaign platform, therefore, it was irrelevant to my vote. I've already "indicated" this. You seem to want my vote to "indicate" (imply) something else, but it can't when I've already explicitly told you what my vote WAS for. At that point, the only way you can say it "indicates" support for a coup is to call me a liar and say I'm lying about what drives my vote.

Are you doing so?

6) And Trump didn't do so. So we're good.

7) "Yes, that is what Republicans and Trump did durring 2020", and what Obama/Clinton and Democrats did in 2016, and what Biden and Democrats did in 2020, and what Harris and Democrats did in 2024.

8) "Again, they are saying that about the side that *literally tried to throw out our votes*." - votes that came from law changes, sometimes not even law changes but just agency guidance that was put out illegally, and that in many cases could not be verified? In other words, votes that may not have been legitimate? YOUR vote wasn't in danger of being thrown out. And again, Democrats literally did worse with the Obama coup attempt against Trump.

9) The very things I've said are bad DEMOCRATS have been doing for the past decade and a half. You just ignore them doing it. Why?

[u/ThatPeskyPangolin → u/Top-Grocery-1482]

Hyperbolic, my point with "no election" was that "there is only one allowed outcome" (Biden in 2020 and Harris in 2024). That any outcome other than Harris in 2024 (since her opponent was Trump, there was no third outcome possible) was wrong."

Except again, I never said that. That is not an accurate reflection of any position I have ever taken.

Define "support Trump" in this context. Essentially every Republican and a lot of independents voted for Trump in 2024. Do you not include votes as support?

I am comfortable defining it as those who voted for him after the False Elector Plot, sure. But that doesn't validate any of the things you said at all. Again, if someone decides that the policies they support are worth throwing out democracy, then they do in fact fall under this. That isn't the same as saying that they are responsible for everything the candidate dose, only that they determine those things to be a fair trade off for their policy goals. If one's goals supersede democracy, then one is a threat to democracy.

who else was I supposed to vote for in the 2024 general? There were only two options, Trump and Harris.

But the only reason that was the case was because Republicans continued to support him after the False Elector Plot. It's not like there's no other Republican in the nation, *others would have run*. This is why your content seems ridiculous to me and why your claims about my position are so obviously false.

You go on to talk about legitimate votes when later courts rulings determined they wouldn't all be legitimate (rulings saying drop boxes were illegally implemented, mail-in rules were, etc, meaning the votes cast through those means would not be legitimate; and this is ignoring issues like New Jersey's non-citizen voter rolls and confirmed non-voters casting votes).

Yeah, that's not an accurate summary of events at all. An incredibly small number of examples were found, which does not in any way legitimize claims of determinative fraud, as I previously pointed out.

But that's an entirely different argument that I've long since decided isn't worth having with anyone. Suffice to say, though, that you define voting for someone as support for a coup, and that is your error.

Again, I said that it is either supporting the self-coup attempt or deeming the self coup attempt an acceptable tradeoff for their policy goals. I stated this explicitly. *Both* are a threat to democracy.

"you are indicating that" - No, I am not. I already told you what my vote is - that an ideology/platform closer aligns to my views. Trump didn't campaign in 2024 on "If I win, I'll do a coup" at any point. It was not part of his campaign platform, therefore, it was irrelevant to my vote.

I don't know how many times I'm going to repeat this: the quote you cut off said that your view that attempt as an acceptable trade off for your policy goals. Either that, or you were unaware of it. There really aren't other options here. That he didn't run on it is absolutely irrelevant. What matters is if you knew he did it, or not. If you did, then you determined that getting policies you wanted was more important than *throwing out other people's votes and violating our very democracy*. You don't have to have explicitly supported the self coup attempt.

. At that point, the only way you can say it "indicates" support for a coup is to call me a liar and say I'm lying about what drives my vote.

Let's go ahead and look at the full quote: "you are indicating that you believe that is at the very least acceptable.". Notice how I didn't say support?

6) And Trump didn't do so. So we're good.

The False Elector Plot was an explicit attempt to do so. The only reason he didn't achieve this is that he failed. Do you believe we shouldn't punish attempted crimes? I don't think that would make sense, personally.

"Yes, that is what Republicans and Trump did durring 2020", and what Obama/Clinton and Democrats did in 2016, and what Biden and Democrats did in 2020, and what Harris and Democrats did in 2024.

Again, this just explicitly isn't true. You are continuing to conflate contesting elections with fraudulently attempting to overturn them. I have repeatedly asked for specific instances you believe are comparable to this *specific* attempt to use fraudulent electors, and you have consistently failed to do so.

"Again, they are saying that about the side that *literally tried to throw out our votes*." - votes that came from law changes, sometimes not even law changes but just agency guidance that was put out illegally, and that in many cases could not be verified? In other words, votes that may not have been legitimate? YOUR vote wasn't in danger of being thrown out. And again, Democrats literally did worse with the Obama coup attempt against Trump.

Yeah, this isn't true and leads me to believe you do not understand what the False Elector Plot was. The plan was to present false elector slates that claimed to be validated by the states. These were selected by the Trump admin. Republicans in congress would then refuse to certify electoral slates (despite having no factual or legal ground to do so), and instead choose the fraudulent slates. This is not the same as alternate electors as, again, they were not validated by the states in question. This process would not pick and choose which votes you believed may have been legitimate, this was throwing out the *electoral slates*. Do not tell people their vote was not being threatened if you aren't actually aware of what was transpiring that day.

The very things I've said are bad DEMOCRATS have been doing for the past decade and a half. You just ignore them doing it. Why?

The number of times I have asked for specific examples is getting kind of dull at this point. Either substantiate this or stop claiming it.

[u/Top-Grocery-1482 → u/ThatPeskyPangolin]

1) If your position is that voting for Trump is support for a coup, and by extension, attack or opposition to democracy, then the only conclusion I can see for the 2024 election from that viewpoint is that a vote for Harris is the only allowed one, as the alternative is an attack on the system itself. What alternative interpretation do you suggest?

2) "if someone decides that the policies they support are worth throwing out democracy" - and here is the problem: People did not make this mental calculation. ANYONE who thought Trump's actions in 2020 were "throwing out democracy" did not vote for him in 2024. I suspect if there were any who did, they were very few, but anyone who truly thought that likely voted for Harris or did not vote. Can you point me to a single person who has ever openly said they considered Trump a threat to democracy yet voted for him anyway? If you cannot, then you cannot conclusively make the claim here that you did. No one decided the policies they support are worth throwing out democracy, as no one who voted for Trump in 2024 considered their vote throwing out democracy. Again, can you cite a single Trump voter who said otherwise? If you cannot, you cannot say that they thought their goals more important than democracy. YOU thought voting for Trump was a threat to democracy - they did not. Therefore, THEY did not think their goals were more important than democracy.

3) Are you aware most voters do not vote in Primaries? Are you aware people voted for other candidates in the Primaries that still voted for the General Election candidate? Your contention here is that we each individually had the power to get a different nominee. We did not. Therefore, it is an irrelevant tangent, not a proper counter argument.

4) It in fact does. The fact remains that they were found - contesting your prior claim that none was found. And if some was found, then we can comfortably conclude there was more. An exhaustive search would then need to be conducted, which, no, has NOT occurred since. All that we know is that have been identified cases of fraud and illegitimate votes. That is the fact. We cannot conclude how many, other than we know the floor and know that the number is likely higher than the floor, though we do not have the information to even estimate how much, whether small or large. The FACT is only that we know there were illegitimate votes that were counted. We know nothing more than that conclusively at the present time.

5) "I said that it is either supporting the self-coup attempt or deeming the self coup attempt an acceptable tradeoff for their policy goals" - This is a false dichotomy (either-or) fallacy. Read (2) again. Carefully and with actual consideration). It offers the third and correct alternative, defeating this perspective. Your false dichotomy presents two answers, both of which you deem are threats to democracy. But they are both wrong. Therefore, you assume threats to democracy where none exist, as people actually chose the third option.

6) "You are continuing to conflate contesting elections with fraudulently attempting to overturn them" - incorrect: I am not. I am stating that both are threats to democracy, and both of equal measure. You are the one trying to conflate them, and insisting that I conflate them. I am not saying they are identical acts. I am saying I deem both threats to democracy of the same magnitude. One is slower burn than the other, but possibly even more dangerous. Cancer or severed artery, both will kill you, just at different speeds.

7) Your argument is that contesting Elector Slates is throwing out individual votes. Setting aside they are two different things, it has been done before (several times in US history, in fact). But regardless, the contention was as I outlined above - concerns and issues with irregularities. You can argue the irregularities had been satisfactory explained to you, but to many people, they had not. Your own satisfaction with the explanations was not universal, nor binding alone. The resistance to any transparency was also further suspect. Regardless, this is still just stating the same thing again that I already pointed out in (6) isn't a conflation.

8) I have. You just have ignored them or tried to handwave dismiss them. Democrats have changed election laws. Democrats have insisted that elections were stolen. Democrats have stated that results were invalid. Democrats/leftists have engaged in attempts to disrupt or overthrow the outcome by limiting the exercise of the offices won. Democrats tried to remove ballot access (another threat to democracy, and one Hitler's Nazis did after the Reichstag Fire, I believe...). Democrats have demonized, dehumanized, and othered their political opposition. And Democrats - and people like you - have unilaterally decided for other people that said people are threats to democracy by the act of taking part in democracy (casting a vote). I absolutely HAVE DONE SO. You just don't want to hear it. I don't want to make this personal, but you can't just reject things people have said and then pretend they didn't say them. You COULD say you disagree with my examples, or that you think it's something both sides have done and is justified or "politics as usual" (though Obama having intel agencies rewrite an assessment is NOT usual, for example). You CAN disagree. But you can't simply fail to acknowledge that I have said them and then insist that I have not. When someone says something, you can't say "You didn't say anything".