Well, in all friendliness, discussions that start with "how do you define" generally end up in a discussion of semantics, which is rarely an interesting place t

Well, in all friendliness, discussions that start with "how do you define" generally end up in a discussion of semantics, which is rarely an interesting place to go. I should preface this by saying I know very little about what's going on in US rhetoric and politics, except that it seems quite bonkers and distracted from the discussions that would actually improve people's lives. My point was that someone who e.g. says "if you don't take the covid vaccine, you should be denied a bank account and never be allowed to travel anywhere in your car" has an extreme opinion in the sense that it's shared by very few and the vast majority disagree. So if you're discussing policy, it's sensible to just filter out this loud but tiny minority. You can find any stance among the world's 8 billion people, but representing a tiny minority as relevant just serves to derail the discussion. One could certainly label them nazis or facists, but if you filter a large population enough, it's not hard to find people holding literally nazistic of facist opinions. If these groups become large enough to threaten approaching relevancy, however, that's an interesting and dangerous development.