When euphemism detracts from the meaning or content of a message, its use is harmful. Your use of the phrase "fascist", regardless of its accuracy (which I debate, but this isn't about semantics), did not add to the content of your message. In fact it detracted significantly, substituting a tired "U.S.->Nazi" cliché in place of whatever message you intended.
"substituting a tired "U.S.->Nazi" cliché in place of whatever message you intended."
He didn't make that claim. He made a specific claim. Rather than debate that claim, you're attacking the word he used. Have you got a better word? As far as I know, the term "Fascist" is the most clinically correct term for that type of system. If someone were to use the less correct, but more emotionally charged term "Nazi", then your line of attack would have some merit.
Ironically, you've made rational discussion impossible because you're using your emotional reaction as an argument against the use of the most accurate term.
I believe this is a tactic. You don't want to admit that this is happening, so you wish to deny anyone the possibility of pointing it out, by insisting that the most appropriate term is "irrational".
The irony, of course, is that this attitude on a mass scale is what allowed the Nazis in germany to obtain so much power. Germans are not genetically fascist, they're just like everyone else. However, like everyone else, they had a very hard time believing that their government could be doing evil, and so they lived in denial. Even after the war, many germans found it difficult to accept that the holocaust had happened.
The idea that fascism, which has happened historically on more than one occasion, is impossible, is perpetuated for ideological reasons. A cynical person might say that those perpetuating the ideology do so because they know their ideology is at its root fascist. (In that case, you would be the victim, not the person I'm accusing.)
If you've got a better term for a society where the economy is privately owned but under absolute control of the government, and the necessary authoritarianism that goes with it, please feel free to propose it.
But your attempt to banish the word created to describe such societies simply because you don't like the implications makes rational conversation impossible.
For instance, rather than discuss the trends we see in the USA, we're dealing with your insistence that we shouldn't use the correct word!
My argument is that use of the word "fascist" itself prevents us from rational discourse of the trends and problems at hand by driving us to extreme positions.
"Fascist" is not the correct word for what's happening. It's a loaded and extreme word. Sure, you can quote an one-sentence online dictionary and use the vagueness of that definition to convince yourself that it is correct. Or you can use an equally simplistic definition like "privately owned but under absolute control of the gov't" and again, claim accuracy. No scholar of political science would ever use a one-line definition for something as culturally and politically significt as fascism.
Even Wikipedia, hardly a controversial source, wouldn't: "Fascism is a radical authoritarian nationalist political ideology.[1][2] Fascists seek rejuvenation of their nation based on commitment to an organic national community where its individuals are united together as one people in national identity by suprapersonal connections of ancestry, culture, and blood through a totalitarian single-party state that seeks the mass mobilization of a nation through discipline, indoctrination, physical education, and eugenics."
The discussion is about an important issue: the increasing control of the US gov't and regulatory agencies over the free agency of US citizens. Jumping in and saying "fascist regime" is not furthering rational conversation.
Also, calling somebody on injecting the emotional baggage of that hyperbole is not making "rational conversation impossible".
In another paragraph I was asked if use of euphemism by media was a big part of the problem at hand. I'd say no, it's the opposite: use of extreme polarizing language is a big part of the problem at hand.
"My argument is that use of the word "fascist" itself prevents us from rational discourse of the trends and problems at hand by driving us to extreme positions."
I call foul: you say that now, but you're participating in preventing people from using the word according to its simple and straightforward meaning! You can't have it both ways there.
"Also, calling somebody on injecting the emotional baggage of that hyperbole is not making "rational conversation impossible"."
Like heck. You're derailing the conversation and quibbling.
I didn't say Nazi. I said fascist. If I mean the "United States is converting toward a right-wing authoritarian regime", then fascism is the correct word for this. Arguing the semantics of this word, or saying I shouldn't use that word because of its associations, really does not make my opinion less valid, and doesn't make any argument to the contrary.
Fascism is characterised by promoting the state over individual interests, the forcible suppression of the opposition, all generally accompanied by a suspension of the rule of law. Some of this is happening here, but it's a long way down the slippery slope.
Calling the US fascist as hyperbole for emotional impact is fine. But it sounds like a lot of people believe the US is actually fascist. My grandparents fled across the Austro-Swiss border from a fascist regime. The US isn't fascist.
You're arguing a point I never made. I said the United States is "converting toward" fascism. I really think that the majority of Americans have no idea what fascism really is, because they're so engrossed inside a propaganda machine that makes the current political situation seem completely normal.
I think articles like this really need to be read by Americans more often:
