RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Category:Para-fascists

Category:Para-fascists | Result: Deleted

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Delete

 * 1) This category has been abused a lot lately and right now it represents just what some users don't like. I mean. JK Rowling? George W Bush? Ayn Rand? Nikki Haley? Henry Kissinger? Henry Ford? Tulsi Gabbard? Give me a fucking break. None of these people have shown ultranationalist tendencies, most of them aren't even authoritarian. At most, they all are assholes (and we've deleted the Insufferable assholes category for a good reason). I don't think we need yet another subjective category that has been abused to the point of being useless. At best, it needs a major overhaul. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 16:35, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) Just when it appeared that the abuse of this category was under control, it flares up again. Either the definition is way too broad and subjective, or else an editor or two believe that everyone to the right of Joe Biden is a fucking para-fascist. This category doesn't serve a useful purpose when it is diluted so much that it redundant with several other categories for right-wingers. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 17:44, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 3) Admittedly, the category is somewhat tenuous. I worry that in particular is going overboard with adding this category to page and also the Category:fascist to other pages. If it's a magnet for abuse, as it seems to be, then let's get rid of it. Bongolian (talk) 19:24, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 4) Delete this category. If we need a parafascist category, create a "Category:Para-fascist regimes" or something, assuming we have enough content for it, and make sure it's strictly defined rather than something like "The U.S. Republican Party is passing anti-democratic laws so we should categorize the United States as para-fascist". 19:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Goat

 * I believe that's been discussed before in Category talk:Para-fascism. Issues in that talk page applies here though and I dislike the usage of this category for similar reasons. 17:11, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems to be a historians' term originally. Any category can be abused, but this one seems prone to it and extra inflammatory when it is — simply because it says "fascists" in it. The general point made by the proposer is taken, but Rowling is no longer in the category and Henry Ford was certainly a Nazi sympathizer (so, if anything, such a category is too soft on the guy). As for dilution of the term as applied to conservatives, I have to wonder whether that's more RW editors' fault, or the GOP's. Do they fail to meet the definition? Is the definition just too vague? Was originally leaning toward keeping it. But I have to wonder the utility of taking the issues with defining fascism itself, then making that issue worse by pushing a second even broader term. Chillpilled (talk) 18:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems like is the term that made it into Wikipedia (at least) for modern 21st century movements that incorporate some elements of fascism. The GOP is a little complicated since it is an umbrella party that includes a neo-fascist wing. Given that plenty of commentators lump the Trumpism movement into neo-fascism particularly after January 6th, it very well could be described as the dominant wing of the party at present, at least rhetorically. The alt-right often explicitly identifies with historical fascist thoughts so I think that wing of the GOP qualifies without any reservation.
 * I think the problem lies less with the complicated GOP situation and more with some of the people lumped in that hardly tick any "fascism" boxes. (Andrew Tate for instance is hyper-masculine and misogynistic, but that is not enough to qualify for fascism. If it was, a regrettably large amount of rock, rap, and other "young angry men" music would also be "para-fascist", which would be as ridiculous as it sounds. BobJohnson (talk) 20:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)