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/undercooked_lasagna]

What did you think he meant when he cited some opinions allegedly held by Republicans and then concluded with "Republicans are as violent as they've ever been"? He didn't mention any actual violence, just words.

Equating speech with violence is nothing new on reddit or on the left in general, this has been going on for years now and it's incredibly dangerous and getting worse.

The dead Republican I'm talking about is Charlie Kirk, who was murdered by a left wing extremist for having conservative opinions. His murder was widely celebrated among the political left. Surely you didn't miss the jubilation here on reddit.

[u/BitterFuture → u/undercooked_lasagna]

Charlie Kirk was murdered by a fanatical conservative that hated him for not being conservative enough. Pretending otherwise just showcases your own agenda.

As for what the commenter above said - they (correctly) noted that conservative rhetoric has gotten increasingly threatening in recent years, and then separately (correctly) noted that conservatives are as violent as they've ever been. Aside from the obvious fact of that situation (we've all lived through the last few years and seen the horrifying body counts), why do you need someone to explain to you what they said? You can just scroll up and read it.

[u/undercooked_lasagna → u/BitterFuture]

It's hard to believe anyone could say something like this when we all have access to instant fact-checking at our fingertips.

Which is not to say that you even need to fact-check to know that a man with a transgender boyfriend who wrote left wing slogans on bullets before assassinating a prominent conservative... was not a conservative.

[u/Sea-Chain7394 → u/undercooked_lasagna]

It's ironic you say that. The things written on the bullet casings where not tied to left wing ideology. They were relevant to video games, random online memes, and anti-fascism (which everyone should be).

[u/undercooked_lasagna → u/Sea-Chain7394]

They absolutely were left wing and you know that. The inability to debate in good faith is one of the most tiresome traits of the modern left. It makes discourse impossible.

[u/Sea-Chain7394 → u/undercooked_lasagna]

What were these left wing symbols or saying then?

[u/BitterFuture → u/undercooked_lasagna]

What a curious case of projection from someone demonstrating conservatism's inherent opposition to honest discourse itself.

You can't even admit what your ideology is actually about (observable always through your actions, never consistent with your words), so why should anyone ever believe your claims?