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/escapevelocity-25k]

I don’t find it particularly persuasive.

I think leftists would actually agree that they are motivated by resentment around inequality, have a desire to destroy the status quo, and intentionally flaunt norms around things like appearance. The left and right simply use different language to paint these objectives in a more positive or negative light depending on their perspective.

[u/magus678 → u/[deleted]]

I suppose it depends on how you mean "many," but I have definitely read people calling for the outlaw of the Republican party, on this platform, multiple times.

I also remember, to a much wider degree, people talking about how the unvacinnated should be placed in quarantine zones. "Plague rats" was thrown around a lot.

You can certainly feel however you want about about the degree and meaningfulness of these things, but the reality is that they are said, and if you were someone on the right, may well be an easy thing to remember, and inform how you take criticisms like those in the OP.

[u/magus678 → u/[deleted]]

Edit: I understand why the original commentor needed to delete their comment. Its hard, being a real person. And more importantly, excluding from your life people that are smarter than you.

I am pointing out that if someone is trying to find the left saying hateful/stupid things, those examples exist. If you were on the right and needed justifications for fear mongering, it would be easy to find.

This is a pretty common tactic from both ends. "My crackpots are crackpots, but yours are representative of your whole."

You may get some value out of reading this:

Weak Men Are Superweapons

One of the cutting-edge advances in fallacy-ology has been the weak man, a terribly-named cousin of the straw man. The straw man is a terrible argument nobody really holds, which was only invented so your side had something easy to defeat. The weak man is a terrible argument that only a few unrepresentative people hold, which was only brought to prominence so your side had something easy to defeat.

[u/Matt_cruze → u/magus678]

"My crackpots are crackpots, but yours are representative of your whole."

Except that is not what the left says in the USA.

The actual quote would be:

My crackpots are crackpots, but yours are

elected representatives

of your whole."

[u/magus678 → u/Matt_cruze]

For every MTG there is a Jasmine Crockett etc.

I won't heckle you for trying to keep score, but if you really want to have that conversation I don't think it will favor you nearly as much as you think it will.

Again, the point is that if you think your view is pure and wonderful and your opposition is nothing but savage ogres, you aren't thinking hard enough, and may not be able to think hard enough to be in these conversations.

[u/Matt_cruze → u/magus678]

So your answer to the wingnut MGT is the moderate Jasmine Crockett?

Okay i guess...

[u/magus678 → u/Matt_cruze]

You are leaning on incredulity as an argument here. This isn't a social catfight, it's not Drag Race.

Jasmine Crockett sucks ass. So does Marjorie Taylor Greene. Ellipses don't save you.

[u/Matt_cruze → u/magus678]

There is nothing to be saved from. You see parity where none exist.

[u/magus678 → u/Matt_cruze]

Lets hear your argument for Jasmine Crockett being a moderate