TL;DR some people have beliefs that widely differ from the median opinion of The Guardian editors. This is fascism.
The article, if you care to read it, documents how disinformation works. You start with a little, inconsequential lie, get your suckers in a row who yearn to be part of something, then escalate.
The clear path from anti vax to killing people you don't like is well underway. If it wasn't so horrifying, speed running nazi germany would be fascinating.
The narcissist and xenophobic desire to label everything exotic or foreign points of view as evil "nazis".
You are feeding the radicalism while thinking you are stopping it
You rightfully defended #1. The parent you replied to is rightfully concerned about #2. The article said that sometimes #1 ends up leading to #2.
I don't think that anyone is saying #1 is equivalent to #2.
I don’t agree with anti-vaxxers who fought lockdowns, mask mandates, and vaccine mandates. But these people are quite literally fighting for less government control. How can that be construed as fascist?
> is a practitioner of “shamanic arts” who eats natural and organic food, and has more than once been described as an “ecofascist”.
People who eat “natural and organic food” secretly want the state to control their lives? Give me a fucking break!
At risk of derailing this thread... It's entirely possible for someone to fight against government control in specific areas of policy. If that person feels threatened they might become more strident in their views, and become more supportive of new policies that implemented their preferences 'firmly'.
I've rarely seen anyone support 'less government' in 100% of situations. When anyone's societal values are threatened (real or imagined) there will be demand for the government to do something about it. When people feel increasingly threatened, they support increasingly 'robust' politicians.
Having said all that, I agree that the word 'fascist' is unhelpful here.